Time concept. Silhouette of Hourglass clock

The universe is a time warp – the quantum universal calendar

This post originally appeared on ZeMing Mr. Gao’s website, and we have republished with the author’s permission. Read the full article here.

In a recently published article on SSRN, Dr. Craig S. Wright described a new theory (philosophy) of time that offers a separate quantum universal calendar as well as an understanding of the universe as an information system. See the full article by Dr. Craig S. Wright: The Philosophy of Time (39 pages, October 3, 2022, editor-reviewed but not peer-reviewed).

“Einstein noted that time is relative when considering the perspectives of different observers. Yet I argue that it is mathematically possible to have a more Newtonian conception of time. There can be a notion of universal time… – Craig S. Wright.

This being from the inventor of the Bitcoin blockchain is both intriguing and unsurprising.

In view of his theory of time, the universe functions as a time warp under a universal clock storing in memory all existence (or existential states) in quantum time pockets. The universe is therefore considered as an information system.

Placed in this stark image of the universe, the Bitcoin blockchain is like a toy experimentation of the universe to mimic its informational nature as a time warp, as the blockchain also operates under a universal clock storing in memory all existence (or states existential) in pockets of quantum time.

The difference is that (1) the blockchain is a man-made system, while the universe is a much larger system created by God; (2) blockchain is a digital information system that must be supported by external hardware and energy, while the universe is inherently embodied in actual hardware and energy; and (3) the blockchain time pocket is measured by 10 minutes (600 seconds), while the universe time pocket is measured by a much smaller unit of time (see below).

When asked if he thought about the theory of time before creating Bitcoin, or if his work on the Bitcoin blockchain inspired the theory, Wright said, “I’ve worked on time for decades, but physics doesn’t pay the bills.”

Planck’s time, the quantum of universal time

Although it is not specified in the article, I postulate that the quantum of time must be the Planck time (about 10^-43 sec) which is the time it would take for a photon traveling at the speed of the light on the Planck length. It is the necessary “brevity” of a period of time in which light can be considered to contain a single static state, which is necessary for the universe to be bound and synchronized in a snapshot of the universe in a single unchanging existential state.

This makes quantum entanglement easier to understand. The greatest perplexity about quantum entanglement is how information from the state of one particle travels to the state of another entangled particle with no obvious middle and no velocity limit. According to Wright’s theory, however, quantum entanglement does not require any displacement of information as part of observable physics, because such displacement only occurs in the continuum of time.

Rather, it is simply that, in Planck time, the quantum state of the universe must be synchronized to maintain a single state.

How synchronization is accomplished in Planck’s unique state of time is conceptually beyond the realm of science. Science can study the exchanges of entropy from one universal state to another, but cannot reach what happens in a single state of Planck time.

The Absolute View of the Universe – The God Hypothesis

Although quantized (discretized) time as a concept is not new, Wright’s theory of time offers a point of view that considers the universe as an external entity, and could open an opportunity to unify the sciences of observation (including the theory of relativity and quantum physics) without philosophical and mathematical contradictions.

You could say this is an old concept because before the theory of relativity there was a theory that something called “ether” was an absolutely static medium, so every movement is measured against ether, serving as an absolute point of reference.

But there are fundamental differences. The ancient ether theory is purely a scientific theory that can be tested. This assumes the existence of aether as an actual material, which is a falsifiable theory and, in fact, has been falsified (proven false) with high-level certainty.

And more importantly, ether is believed to be part of the universe and therefore must be included and explained by physics itself.

In contrast, Wright’s universal calendar views the entire universe as an external entity and assumes the existence of a universal time which is independent of the observable motions of matter in the universe but, at the same time, provides a universal framework in which the entire universe operates.

In this sense, the existence of universal time itself cannot be tested experimentally and is therefore not a science but a philosophy. But at the same time, the theory is subjected to a test of consistency with existing observations of the universe. Because such observations have been well explained by existing physics, including the theory of relativity, the new theory (philosophy) of time must be mathematically consistent with existing theories of spacetime. Wright’s 39-page article contains an in-depth review of the theory in light of the scientific literature.

However, philosophically, the point of view that “takes the universe as an external entity” is that of God.

I argue that science should at least be prepared to accept such an absolute view provided certain principled conditions are met, rather than arbitrarily and outright rejecting it.

Science cannot prove or disprove God, but must accept the “God hypothesis” as the most fundamental hypothesis, as long as the hypothesis does not contradict observational science. It is the only position that is both morally and intellectually justifiable.

Wright’s theory of time shows that an infinite amount of information (which suggests an infinite intelligence behind it) is contained in the universe. In any given universal state, there are an almost infinite number of possibilities. Even just looking at the atomic level (i.e. without going to a much smaller Planck length scale), one estimate is that the universe has 10^82 atoms, and each atom, even though it is limited to a small space accessible by the atom, has a very large number of possible states, in particular compared to the other atoms nearby. Whatever this number is, the total number of all possible states of the universe is this very large number to the power of 10^82 (not 10^82 times, but the power of that, and the base of the power is not 10 but itself a very large number).

In all practical senses, the total number is infinity.

And the state of the universe is updated every 10^-43 seconds, which is 10^43 times per second, about 10^48 times per day, and 3×10^53 times every 1000 years. But even at such a high frequency of updates, the total states of the universe that actually existed in any given finite period of time would be only an infinitesimally small subset of all possible states.

This means that whatever the contemporary states of the universe are, they only account for an infinitesimal part of all theoretical possibilities. The universe is not just mathematical but also physical, clearly not presenting all theoretically possible states as equal but rather manifesting on the selected special trajectory, which is an extremely small subset of all theoretical possibilities.

The particular arrangement (structure) of the universe is special, more specifically, meaningfully chosen from an infinite number of possibilities.

And just think about the fact that we human beings, who are a tiny part of the universe, should even have the privilege of pondering such infinite wisdom, despite the fact that our brain’s ability to process information is infinitely small if measured by the amount of information contained in this universe!

So we need to be humble and take a position that is both morally and intellectually justifiable, which is to recognize the God hypothesis.

The typical objection to the God hypothesis is that it is unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific. True, but what is the alternative when we reach the ultimate questions which, by definition, are beyond the realm of falsifiable and provable science?

It’s a question of choice.

A problem with modern science is that it is willing to accept all sorts of hypothetical assumptions as long as they do not violate the human imagination, but with one exception: the assumption of God, who recognizes the Creator of universe and is therefore immediately rejectable.

This has led to absurd choices to satisfy the human imagination.

For example, when faced with the question of the origin of the universe, which belongs to an unobservable realm, scientists would rather choose unfalsifiable imaginations of parallel universes rather than the Creator as the sole source of origin and meaning of the universe; and faced with the genetic and mathematical impossibility of the macroevolution of life, scientists would choose to believe in the origin of life from an extraterritorial higher intelligence as long as the name of God is not invoked or implied. See Science & Faith.

So it’s a matter of choice. But when one must choose between two equally unfalsifiable hypotheses, how can it be justifiable if his choice is resolutely and always that which denies the Creator of the universe? Doesn’t that in itself say something about the state and motivation of the human heart?

This anomaly is a symptom of a wrong combination of two opposing isms, namely humanistic authoritarianism (which dictates that God must be outside of science) and religious authoritarianism (which dictates that science must be determined by the authorities nuns in the name of God).

Historically, the anomaly results from an overreaction of humanism to religious authoritarianism.

But the Truth is in a much better position which escapes both humanist authoritarianism and religious authoritarianism.

If science is not allowed to consider the intervention of God in the existing universe, it must at least admit the point of view of God who considers the universe as a external entity, because otherwise Gödel’s incompleteness theorems dictate that our theories of the universe can never be self-consistent. See, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and artificial intelligence (Why AI will never replace humans).

With this vantage point, however, Wright’s philosophy of time comes into its own. It does not contradict observational science and may even provide a better unified mathematical framework to existing physics.

Watch: BSV Global Blockchain Convention Presentation, Academic Accreditation and Certification on BSV Blockchain

width=”560″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”>

New to Bitcoin? Discover CoinGeek bitcoin for beginners section, the ultimate resource guide to learn about bitcoin – as originally envisioned by Satoshi Nakamoto – and blockchain.

#universe #time #warp #quantum #universal #calendar

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *