Posted 07 September 2008 - 01:25 PM
Hi There,
To that which we refer as 'time' at the level of our ordinary wakeful conscious, is fundamentally different than that which Feng & Co is seeking to quantify. In essence, Feng is not quantifying time, per se, but the mechanism (and attendent effects) of entropy. Before the scientist can actually use time as a means of measure, he must discover if time, itself, actually exists. By this I mean, does time exist independently from other quantifiable perceivings, such as 'space' and 'motion'? In other words, the question asked is...does time exist as an independent reality? If we discover through reason and logic that it does not, then our conclusion must be that it does not exist, and that which we are measuring or quantifying as a time unit (second, minute, hour...etc) is not time but a process of a natural mechanism, ie, the distance covered by a motion.
Our natural perception of time is to do with duration. We can only measure duration by the observation of a motion (no matter how small or large) which we can term as a event. A event has a beginning and a end, and between those two vectors is the duration. We cannot isolate time in order to measure or quantify time, without recourse to the measurement of something other than time. This is the problem, are we actually measuring time by quantifying the duration of a energetic process? Entropy is a energetic process of a system undergoing collapse, but does not come into play until that system has reached peak structuralization, and only whence that peak cannot be sustained does the entropic process begin. If we are to allow for entropy to be our 'arrow of time', it is logical to assume that although the entropic process could begin anytime, there is a significant period whereby entropy is held at bay, where stability (of the structure) is sustained for a duration, thereby circumnavigating the arrow of time, which we perceive as pointing toward the future. The less complexity inherent in a structure, the more relevant this issue is. Entropic process is always apparent, always threatening to collapse a system, and does so when internal/external influences upon the system are greater than the system's inate ability to sustain itself at optimum stability for whatever duration. The human body (a very complex system), for instance, does not replace all its dead and dying cells at the same time, so entropy is a constant ongoing process upon it. Eventually, entropy overwhelms the body's inate ability to regenerate, mechanisms and organs begin to fail, and death ensues. The less 'system' a system is, the longer its apparent duration in circumnavigating entropy.
Entropy is a useful guide for signposting a direction of 'virtual' time, but that is all it is, a useful guide...it says nothing about time itself, because entropy pertains only to systems and structures under collapse, which is an entirely different fundamental. Virtual time is that which we can consider as that which we perceive...time's flow, but of course, time itself (if it exists?) does not flow, only energetic processes flow, move, have motion...and they are 'in' our perception of time, not of it; thus, what we are perceiving as time is in fact a virtual representation of duration. Time is nothing more than the quale experience of durations overlapping each other. Time, per se, does not exist as a independent reality, we cannot separate it from anything that we measure. Not because time is inherent in the processes we observe, but because it is inherent in our perceivings of the overlapping durations of events. Time is more to do with consciouness, with how consciousness arises and manifests in us...therein lies the answer to our perception of time's forward momentum.
Best wishes