...
Suppose we are
lacking of any memory i.e. what we perceive, has no previous information in our
mind to compare with. For example consider a bunch of decaying particles which
decay without any prior memory. The next one going todecay, knows nothing about
which decayed just before or now and which will be the next. There is no
correlation of decay of an individual one with decays of others. The decaying
particles have no Memory. The consequences of the absence of any memory is that
there will be no answer for any question by the system lacking of any memory.
If a system will not be able to memorize the command or instructions, how will
it give an answer to that question because a command also consumes some memory
for its implementation. In absence of memory none will be able to appreciate
the beauty, feelings etc. There will be no more pleasure and no more sorrows.
What do we mean by
memory? The answer is " the impression of various things on a system which
are preserved in form of certain deformations in the structure of the system".
When one perceives something, the mind is impressed by it. It leaves certain
deformation in our mind characteristic of the event. Now a natural question arises
that what actually an impression mean by? The answer is that this is some bit of
energy exchanged between the system making impression on the system of interest
and the system being impressed (system of interest). Now suppose a situation
where the things affect us instantaneously (in principle/an ideal situation) one
by one followed by the impression, we perceive . But if we don't have any memory,
how will we be able to correlate the two impressions ? And then it will be difficult
to say that whether we saw something or not? This implies that only present exists
in form of its instant impressions. This somehow defends the presentism which
says that only present lives and past or future are nonexisting. I have two objections
on this. First is that what we call so called present, contradicts its own definition.
We literally mean by Present as a set of simultaneous events affecting a system
instantaneously.
This set of events has its impressions on
our mind individually in events and thus the perceiving system becomes able to
distinguish them as separate. But these different events in form of
informations when reach to our mind simultaneously, actually may have their
origins at different times. For example if one is caught in rain and he
observes a thunder lightening and simultaneously a loud roar of the clouds then
he thinks that both would have started simultaneously. But the situation is
different. The thunder lightening started earlier at some different origin far
from that which caused the roar of cloud. This means weobserved two objects in
which if one is said to be instantaneous then definitely the other one is
something started in past. This is contrary to presentism which offers that for
something in present it not only should be perceived instantaneously but also
should exist simultaneously somewhere in space. Thus at one hand the presentism
denies the existence of any past and on the other hand contradicts itself.This
can be taken other way around also. Suppose a collision of two clouds somewhere
far in sky caused a thunder lightening and some roar simultaneously.
Although both
started at the same time where the clouds collided but for an observer the
sound reaches later than the light. So the observer perceives the roar as a
past event contradicting its definition. Second is that any observer who perceives
the time has certain things to make sure that some changes/processes to compare
with but if it were lacking of memory, there is no further possibilities to correlate
the events and this demands that the observer will be no more able to appreciate
the changes and thus the existence of time itself is questioned.
What about the
future? If we have a series of presents in our mind which actually form a past
and the same time a single “present” going on. We find a correlation in changes,
occurring. The changes we perceive indicate that we can predict what the type
of change is to be or what the next we may perceive. This guess is nothing but “future”.
Thus we find a sequence of time (changes) as “past > present > future”.
This was one way
to see the changes. We have another way too. Few of us say that only present is
real and all the past and future are mere imaginations of brain or you can say
these exist only in form of the informations in brain. That means the past and
future don't exist in reality. The people belonging to this school say that
'past is gone' and hence has nothing to do with the “present”. What could be,
had already happened and so there is no possibility of being it. And the future
is mere a possibility of being. It may be or may not be. But it gets its
meaning only when the present takes its place. The future is that which has not
come yet and is in a space of possibilities only or in other words this space
of possibilities is nothing but future. Thus saying conclusively that only the
present is real because something can be changed and we make some action on the
things. Since we can not act on the events which have been passed or which are
to be, so these are not real. This school of thoughts is known as
“presenteeism”. A very sharp criticism of thepresentism, we put forward here.
What we mean by the present, is perceptions of the various things which we have
in our mind in absence of any prior memory.
But recall that the things which we
perceived, have different locations and so the informations travelling from
them have their different times (retarded). For example we listen a sound and
see some flash of light in sky simultaneously. How can we say that both have
their origin common? And even worse the case that the sound of thunderbolt and
the light have started simultaneously at the same place far from us but we
really don't perceive these simultaneously. So, what we say Present is actually
a collection of snapshots at very different present times. Even the nearest thing
is already has been elapsed in time and what we perceived is actually something
stale. For the time being the things have been evolved and we really are not
aware of it. So where the present is? We have perceived on the name of present,
a jumble of stale events. The other school is there which denies the sole existence
of time itself. It talks about that what we have as time is “just a collection of
ordered events which emerge due to succession of various possible distributions
of the things in space.”
In relativistic
interpretation each and every event actually can be represented by points in a
higher dimensional phase space. We call this higher dimensional space as
spacetime. So each event in spacetime is nothing but a point. Now if a process
is taking place then it means that it is tracing a collection of points in
spacetime. Its trajectory implies an ordered collection of events. So one can start
from anywhere.
All we perceive,
is already fixed as points in spacetime. The only thing one can know is that
which subset of points with certain order is being considered. What the next to
attain, is mere a possibility of attaining of some points of spacetime. In this
representation thus we have no more, any tense. This is the widely accepted school
of thoughts. “The time comes through the ordering of the events for a certain
process”. If the ordering would not be there, we could never perceive any time.
Till now we have
talked about the time as something which finds its existence through the mind
of the observer. This time is called “psychological time” because it involves
the consciousness in its heart. But certain changes occur irrespective ofour
being. A pendulum swings without caring of our being. So the time associated with
such mechanical system which is independent of the presence of our own is known
as mechanical time. Since we have discussed so for that for each individual process,
there is a time associated with it. But if we look at the universe, the universe
is itself changing as a whole more or less in a statistical way according to the
laws of thermodynamics. Then there seems to be a global time. Which runs irrespective
of local times. This time is called “thermodynamical time”. One can ask that
what the thermodynamical time is? The answer is still complicated and suffers all
the difficulties of the local time. It follows the thermodynamics of the
universe.
Let us consider a
case in which we find that the time flows in a local frame (associated with
certain process). The flow of time never can be determined until we have
something else to change irrespective of the change which we are observing for
the time of consideration. That means in order to find the flow of time of a
particular change, one has to have something changing irrespective of the changes
of which we are trying to find the flow of time associated with. This may be
our heart beats or it may be a wrist watch or anything else. Thus compared to this
change we can talk about the flow of time. The slow change means less flow of the
time and rapid changes leads fast flow of the time. Suppose we are observing any
such change and hence perceiving the associated time. We find that the time associated
with the change flows accordingly with the change. Now if the changes cease to
occur then what we find, standing out of the regime of the change is: the time is still
flowing while changes have been ceased to occur. This is all due to that in our
system there is something, still changing. That means, the time associated with
us is still flowing. Now if there be nothing to change anywhere that means all the
changes have ceased to occur in us and everywhere else then will there be a time?
No, never. What will then be that until the changes start again, the time will have
no meaning. For example, suppose someone sitting on the surface of a star, as an
independent system, is observing the evolution of another star and hence is calculating
the history of the evolution of another star. Now if the changes through which
he perceives the time associated with his star and thus with comparision,
knows the history
of the evolution of the other star, cease to occur. He will never be able to
know whether there have been any evolution in other star or not? He will never
feel any cutting of time line. He will come to know about the star only when the
evolution of his star, starts again. Like a person awakened after a long
sleep,finds that his timeline would have never been broken and the world around
him has evolved in time suddenly too rapid. Something like inflation. He will
observe the world to be inflated. The viceversa may also be true. An observer
associated with the global thermodynamical time if due to certain reasons finds
all the processes ceased. He will find there would be no more time. When the
changes restart he will again start perceiving the time and then due to memory
he will find that the things around him, have changed suddenly so fast like
some inflation. He will find the world inflated around him. This is all due to
that the global time through which he was associated was ceased to flow.
I will make it clear
with analogy that suppose we have a cassette player. We are the external
observer to the cassette player and let there be an observer associated with cassette
player. Now we both agree with that the time is flowing. Now if due to certain
reasons the cassette player stops working , there is nothing changing within player.
The observer associated with player will be no more able to observe the cease
of flow of time. But we being external to the cassette player will be able to observe
the changes and will say that cassette has been stopped. Now if the cassette
player suddenly starts playing again ( may be due to our efforts) , he will find
his time flowing again but he will not be able to know this that his time had been
abrupted. He will know that his time is continuously flowing. But we being an external,
never find it to be true.
Another good
example is that suppose some person who is among us, freezes to be an inert
that means all his motions have been seized microscopically and macroscopically
both. For implicitly, consider him to be turned into a statue for some span of
time due to some devil curse and we being his caretaker are waiting for his
curse to be finished. Now when the curse is over, he again turns into normal being
and finds that the world around him, has been changed but he will never find that
he was frozen for a time being. While we being his caretaker know that what he is
observing is quite different from our observations. He would never find that
for him the time had been abrupted, but we know. Let us consider now the case
in which an observer finds that his time does not continue indefinitely but is
bounded.
...
No comments: