Re: [Fis] replies to several. The Key to Time

2011-05-23 Thread Koichiro Matsuno
Dear Joseph,

 

 I feel that in point 3. of your note you describe a key to time but you do 
 not use it! 

 

Right. The last time, I skipped over something. The issue is how to 
descriptively approach phenomenological time via the interplay between real, 
physical systems without prior reference to the flow of time on the global 
scale. My intended entry for this endeavor has been to pay attention to some 
physical body remaining invariant while being constantly involved in exchanging 
its constituent subunits. That is to say, once a molecular aggregate happens to 
appear whose class identity is kept intact while the constituent subunits 
constantly come and go, the through-flow maintaining the class identity of the 
aggregate can superficially be associated with the flow of time as we know of 
it in the contradictory sense that while passing away constantly, time remains 
as time as keeping its identity. The flow of time here is only taken as “a 
representation”, or an anthropocentric metaphor at best, of the material 
through-flow as a decisive factor for keeping the class identity of a physical 
body at the cost of the vicissitude of the individual identities of the 
constituent subunits. The cyanobacterial circadian clocks are just an empirical 
example of keeping the class identity of a KaiC hexamer while constantly 
exchanging or shuffling the monomeric KaiC subunits. 

 

The objective, as you have written well earlier, is to better understand the 
interplay of what we call the tenses in language.

 

   The underlying issue is how can we construct the flow of time from the 
tenses. When the constant update of the present perfect tense in the present 
progressive tense is referred to in the finished record,  we can perceive the 
flow of time as driven by the transitive verb “update” in the present tense, 
though only in retrospect. This updated version of the flow of time in 
retrospect exhibits a marked contrast to the flow of time riding on the 
intransitive verb “flow” in the present tense unconditionally, the latter of 
which is common to the standard practice of physical sciences even including 
relativity.  The occurrence of the perfect tense is due to the act of 
measurement of material origin distinguishing between the before and after its 
own act, while its frequent update in the progressive tense will be 
necessitated so as to meet various conservation laws such as  material or 
energy flow continuity to be registered in the record, e. g., not to leave the 
failure in meeting the flow continuity behind. The KaiC hexamers of 
cyanobacteria are involved in the constant update of the prefect tense in the 
progressive tense. 

 

How is that for using time as a synthetic construction rather than as an 
analytical tool?!

 

   The flow of time read by the externalist, say, by Ptolemy-Newton, into an 
invariant cyclic motion of the stellar configuration displayed over the sky is 
enigmatic in relating a cyclic movement of physical bodies to a linear movement 
of something else called time. A less ambitious approach could be to relate a 
linear movement of physical bodies to the linear movement of time even if the 
latter is an anthropocentric artifact, unless the artifact interferes with the 
physical bodies. The flow of time read-into by the physicist implies no linear 
flow of time in the absence of the physicist as leaving only the original 
cyclic motions behind. That must be quite stifling.  In contrast, appreciating 
the material through-flow keeping the class identity of the supporting material 
aggregate as being represented as the flow of time comes to imply that the 
through-flow is informational in that it presumes both the message (e.g., the 
subunits to be exchanged) and its dative (e.g., the aggregate processing their 
exchanges). Both information and time, once set free from the read-into flow of 
time,  are common in sharing the similar materialistic and energetic context in 
incorporating the transitive verbs into themselves as holding the contrast 
between the direct and the indirect object of a verb, that is to say, between a 
message and its dative. Despite that, I am not quite sure at this moment 
whether this synthetic view would merely be one step backward for the sake of 
the likely two steps forward to come. 

 

Best,

Koichiro

 

 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


Re: [Fis] replies to several. The Key to Time

2011-05-23 Thread Loet Leydesdorff
Dear Koichiro and colleagues, 

 

Let me try to raise some questions. I find the language sometimes difficult. 
Examples might help!

 

Ø  The underlying issue is how can we construct the flow of time from the 
tenses. 

 

In other words: time is a construct of language? 

 

When the constant update of the present perfect tense in the present 
progressive tense is referred to in the finished record,  we can perceive the 
flow of time as driven by the transitive verb “update” in the present tense, 
though only in retrospect. 

 

This is a description of this construction process: how it works.

 

This updated version of the flow of time in retrospect exhibits a marked 
contrast to the flow of time riding on the intransitive verb “flow” in the 
present tense unconditionally, the latter of which is common to the standard 
practice of physical sciences even including relativity.  The occurrence of the 
perfect tense is due to the act of measurement of material origin 
distinguishing between the before and after its own act, while its frequent 
update in the progressive tense will be necessitated so as to meet various 
conservation laws such as  material or energy flow continuity to be registered 
in the record, e. g., not to leave the failure in meeting the flow continuity 
behind. The KaiC hexamers of cyanobacteria are involved in the constant update 
of the prefect tense in the progressive tense. 

 

The “various conservation laws” are not a construct of language but constraints 
on constructions in language? Have they always been these constraints or only 
since the scientific revolution of the 17th century?

 

Ø   The flow of time read by the externalist, say, by Ptolemy-Newton, into an 
invariant cyclic motion of the stellar configuration displayed over the sky is 
enigmatic in relating a cyclic movement of physical bodies to a linear movement 
of something else called time. A less ambitious approach could be to relate a 
linear movement of physical bodies to the linear movement of time even if the 
latter is an anthropocentric artifact, unless the artifact interferes with the 
physical bodies. The flow of time read-into by the physicist implies no linear 
flow of time in the absence of the physicist as leaving only the original 
cyclic motions behind. 

 

The original cyclic motions predate the reading. They are given? By whom and in 
which language? (By God in the revelation of his creation, that is, in the 
Bible?)

 

That must be quite stifling.  In contrast, appreciating the material 
through-flow keeping the class identity of the supporting material aggregate as 
being represented as the flow of time comes to imply that the through-flow is 
informational in that it presumes both the message (e.g., the subunits to be 
exchanged) and its dative (e.g., the aggregate processing their exchanges). 
Both information and time, once set free from the read-into flow of time,  are 
common in sharing the similar materialistic and energetic context in 
incorporating the transitive verbs into themselves as holding the contrast 
between the direct and the indirect object of a verb, that is to say, between a 
message and its dative. Despite that, I am not quite sure at this moment 
whether this synthetic view would merely be one step backward for the sake of 
the likely two steps forward to come. 

 

Is the dative of a message different from the third case in the declension? 
Please, explain what you mean and provide perhaps an example.

 

“Both information and time”…? If “information” can be defined in terms of a 
probability distribution, would “time” be definable as a frequency 
distribution? Is that perhaps how I can understand these two to be juxtaposed 
in this sentence? 

(I would be inclined to consider time as “what is being communicated” when 
frequencies are communicated.)

 

Best wishes, 

Loet

 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis