1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Cosmology, Evolution, and Time

Discussion in 'Factor X' started by NeilBB, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Jack, you've been hinting a lot about time, time's arrow, and now eukarotic "creation of time." In the past we've talked about t-invarience in physics, etc. However, this all seems far from clear to me at this point.

    If biological evolution sprung from cosmology, as I think it did, it implies an external thermodynamic and cosmological arrow of time that would have had to precede life (certainly eukarotic life and probably all life). Therefore, eukaryotic membrane vibrations could not really be the source of "time's arrow?"

    My understanding of chronobiology is that life adapts to and recreates an internal representation of cosmic time. But that is not the same thing as saying that "life creates time itself."

    Although it is "statistical" in nature, it still seems to me that the second law implies both entropy and the arrow of time, completely independently from the existence of life. If it didn't, then why would life have even arisen? What thermodynamic problem would there even be for life to solve?

    The only alternative to that that I can think of is if the existence of life were in fact perpetual. In other words, if "life" created "time," then "time prior to life's existence" becomes meaningless and null..
    patgrif@hotmail.com likes this.
  2. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    to tell anytime Neil you have to have something to measure to reference points..........energy has only one.
  3. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    As I said in this Q & A in Dec 2014, it is emergent because of this reason..........time is a recreation just as the sky is blue........if you actually bother to look at the optics of the sun and the air molecules we should be seeing a violet or purple sky but we do not because our eyes dont see purple violets as well as they see so the sky is blue because scattering of light is inversely proportional to the 4th root of the wavelength........Nitrogen........is that key.
    NeilBB likes this.
  4. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Recreation? Not creation?
    Haven't been able to hear Q&A yet. Waiting for replay to be posted...
    Shijin13 likes this.
  5. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Well. In classical physics, any motion through space implies time. These are frames of reference... Not quantum though...

    Motion doesn't necessarily imply directional time however. But the existence of entropy seems to.

    But once you throw out the "big bang," and view the universe in terms of "plasma cosmology" with electromagnetic lenses instead of gravitational ones, a lot of things change, don't they?

    In NOLA, we discussed an eternal universe that "expands and contracts" cyclically. Perhaps entropy is no more fundamental than time.

    I'm also thinking back to my own post of 6 months ago about the supremacy of cycles over linearity...


    Perhaps time is better described as a coil than an arrow?
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2014
    Shijin13 likes this.
  6. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Coupled cycles do work better in Onsager's reciprocity relationships for energy flows. And I dont think motion denotes time........a standing wave is moving but going no where. Vibrations generally can be static while oscillations move through space.
  7. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Okay, here's today's thought experiment...

    It seems to me that the essential feature of "entropy" and the 2nd law, in thermodynamics is not really that heat increases or even that molecular randomness increases, but more that the energy remaining in the system can no longer be "harnessed to do work." That's the practical working definition. It's also very subjective, in a way. Heat could always be useful to something, maybe we just don't know what yet...

    So what if on a cosmic scale, the idea of entropy is not universally valid (as big-bang theory assumes it is)? What if instead, cosmic energy could always be perpetually "recycled" into potentially other "useful" energetic forms? And without life, who's to say what's useful and what's not useful anyhow? So I say, without life, you can't really even talk about entropy. And without entropy, the arrow of time probably disappears. You just have energy and particles bouncing around in a cyclic "time-invariant" fashion. (Similarly, solar systems with gravitational orbits can define maybe a sort of "cyclic time" but not an irreversible arrow of time as we speak of.)

    If you reject big-bang cosmology and the idea of a "heating-expanding" universe, it seems to me that this may all be plausable. If that were the case, then entropy would become only a local contextual attribute, not a universal one. And then, "cosmic time" would also become meaningless in terms of a directional arrow for the universe as a whole, which solves some big philosophical problems too.

    The fact that the second law is "statistical" also means that it really can't apply to the universe as a whole, which would have to be necessarily independent of such crude temporal and statistical limitations. (It's the universe! It can have as many iterations as it damn well wants. Think about it.)

    We could then speculate that linear time can only be meaningfully spoken of in a subset of the universe subject to certain specific conditions. Those conditions being the existence of "local entropy" and "local life." It seems to me that the concept of "entropy" would probably be meaningless without "life" which provides growth, death, decay, not only of organisms, but of whole systems as a starting referent to even begin to define "useful work."

    I would then further speculate along this line of reasoning, that the "origin of life" itself was not in answer to a thermodynamic problem (as I thought before), but in fact just a random cosmic event that actually created the thermodynamic problem we now speak of. And ever since then, biology has just been trying to solve this ongoing thermodynamic problem through evolutionary innovation!

    So in this model, the arrow of time derives from entropy, which derives from the existence of life and life's membranes have since evolved to codify and record it...

    And the reason why "life" seems to be organized around and focused on containing entropy and harnessing the 2nd law is basically because "life" is what actually created those problems to begin with. Without life, the plasma universe would just go on buzzing about itself, not worrying about time, entropy, or anything else, until some other random event created some other physics problem to be solved in some other way...
    nonchalant likes this.
  8. i agree time vanishes without consciousness or "life," because it exists only within consciousness. As do the ideas of entropy etc for that matter.
  9. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Consciousness and time are linked by quantum processing that is not mechanistic or of reductive mechanical processes.
  10. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Now youre getting why I was pounding on that second law for 18 months and why I used the frig for the entropy idea.........time, entropy, and gravity are all emergent properties of conscious life......which is based upon quantum processes. In solid state physics 1+1 often equals 4. Just look at what a laptop can do, you iphone or your brain can........the only difference is the atomic mass and energy required.
  11. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member


    So Seth Lloyd, a very bright MIT physicist has proposed that quantum entanglement itself could explain the arrow of time. In this view, it would seem that entanglement would be a restrictive phenomenon, more likely to be correlated with aging (movement toward equilibrium-or death) rather than a beneficial one. But he is not really applying in to biological systems here, just to matter. So, I don't know...

    But is raises an interesting point, doesn't it? Could your biological particles become too entangled and thus restricted in freedom? And could that age you also? I know that is the opposite of what you seemed to say in the Dec Q&A, Jack. But perhaps there is a sweet spot for entanglement too and autophagy/apoptosis may have to remove overentangled particles as well as un-entangled ones?
  12. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    One can't be overentangled.........why? because it can only happen when light is present for noctural life and in darkness for most eukaryotes. Tensegrity implies balance NeilBB. So I am not sure why you think I think otherwise.........
    NeilBB likes this.
  13. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    This guy seems to equate entanglement with movement toward equilibrium and restriction of freedom of states, aka, entropy. It may be completely wrong. Wanted to see what you thought. I don't know. I'm not enough of a theoretical physicist to know yet...
  14. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Life lives far from equilibrium Neil and this means equilibrium is far from entanglement........so I dont buy this.
    NeilBB likes this.
  15. Da-mo

    Da-mo Gold

    For me it seems more intuitive that the more system is entangled>the more it resonates coherently>the more likely it will achieve a system wide resonant frequency>the more likely a standing wave will emerge = areas of higher and lower energy/mass/density or whatever=less chaos/more order=energy available above entropy to do work.
    NeilBB likes this.
  16. Neil - I agree with your basic thrust, it reminds me of the rather 'silly' stuff we used to discuss in Philosophy like if a tree falls in the forest and there was no one there to hear/see it did it 'really' fall. And people would 'speculate' on stuff like that. But to me it's like OF COURSE it fell, just because there was no 'received' there for the sound does not mean the sound did not happen. And somewhere else you called it 'idealism' the idea 'it's all in the mind' or 'life creates time' etc etc. It has also been called 'solopcism' taken to absurd level where a person believes they are all that exist or the only life that exists
    NeilBB likes this.
  17. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Well Pat, supposedly the idealists received scientific validation with quantum theory which has elevated the "observer" to being integral to the state of the system. Since Heisenberg, the idea is that you can't really observe or measure a system without altering it, so this idea seems to invalidate the idea of an existence independent from a conscious observer.

    But I'm not so sure about that for a number of reasons. The equations of quantum mechanics clearly work but exactly how they apply and should be interpreted is much more complex and subject to revision. What makes it so complex is that very few people really have the depth and breadth of technical knowledge to sort the mess out. There are certainly large gaps in my knowledge...
  18. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    I guess the other issue involves the flow of atoms and particles through the body, correct? Atoms and molecules will be constantly turning over (although probably at varying rates in different tissues/circumstances). So some entangled particles will be retained for a while and some lost more quickly? "Motor memory" could utilize this mechanism?
  19. Neil - I have always been a bit unsure about the "Uncertainty Principle" in one way it can be seen as profound, but in another maybe trivial. Like if we have an inability to do something (like measure location and spin or something of the sort) do we then impute that quality to 'reality'. And that is something I am wary about on some of this 'quantum magic' business. Like something can be 2 places at once or things keep a 'connection' though trillions of light years apart. Really?? Isn't it as much likely to be some 'artifact of our thinking' some limitation of our way of looking at it or something we 'impute' to reality.

    On the other hand I do believe QED has discovered a lot of valuable things and that video Jack put on the blog recently of the English physicist showing how quantum actually does apply to biology made things a lot clearer for me. I now can see more why Jack is stressing this (first I thought maybe he was just trying to stress us out lol!!), since life IS that delicate and operates on the smallest and subtlest of scales, it seems to make massive use of these tiny forces that I has assumed only were of interest to physicists then OF COURSE nnEMF is likely to be a huge problem.

    The effect of the magnetic field of the earth is very small on an individual charged particle but very very important so OF COURSE fields from electric lines and all the rest of the stuff we are exposed to are hugely to be reckoned with. There is method to his madness I should not have doubted it. At the same time I think there is a danger (I am a good example of this myself) of getting 'over-intellectual' about some of this. It can literally become a 'head trip' and we all seem to disappear in frequencies and waves to the point there is no 'individual' left. That is why for myself at least I keep hold of the 'feeling' aspects of life if I can and I like Janov's notions about pain and memories even if his 'application' seems to lack something
  20. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    The magnetic field limits the noise on the surface of this planet.......the sun increases that noise and most life needs that noise to awaken..........but life is structured around darkness and sleep because it requires the stillness of oscillations to touch the quantum world.

Share This Page