Waves, particles, and the arrow of time

Light acts like a wave and like a particle, a paradox that turned Physics into Alice in Wonderland. A shock they have not recovered from nearly 100 years on.

Yet isn't the same true of time, of our lives...?

Every moment feels unique, and individuum. Yet days feel like waves of moments, time harmonises, crescendos. The very activities we engage in glue moments seamlessly together.

So maybe the same is true of light as time, perhaps light and time are more closely related...

So...

The stuttering machine gun fire of moments transpires, or is experienced...
It feels like Time's Arrow, true, but if space and time are part of the same thing, then all times must exist at once...

Everybody knows the tale of how, when one of his close friends died, Einstein consoled his widow by saying, “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. We convinced physicists know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent.” 

Not very diplomatic but clearly a strongly held conviction. And if time is ever present, then our experience of it must be unreliable - right?

As we experience time, we create a narrative. We create 'false' narratives... We retrospectively fit explanations of the million events to include cause and effect, despite our unconsciously driven behaviour and despite therefore the fact we none of us choose more than a tiny fraction of our actions. 

Heavens, we don't even think before we speak - that is, almost nobody does .... So, if almost all our behaviours are unconscious, then the weaving of a false narrative, contrived after the fact, and the way we introduce our rationale into the narrative, must necessarily be almost universally untrue.

In other words, when we say "why" Fred did this and "why" George then did that, these are by definition almost always fabrications. Not least because they imply free will and intention.

In fact - "why" not only implies intention as a linguistic device, it also - in so doing - invents the fiction of intention.

Perhaps "why" is therefore an unhelpful concept, peculiar to our physiology.

After all, free will is a non debate. Kahneman and Tverski's findings help us understand how people make decisions, but they also indicate we have no knowledge ourselves of the true drivers of our own decisions. They can only be discovered from the outside, by experiment, and, as such, are predictable into the future.

And, as Daniel Dennett confirmed, we have no introspective access into our own cognitive processes and therefore our own reports of such things are a "treacherous incubator of lies". 

Instead, time happens, is always happening. All the slices of bread are there, and it is us who move through them, with no knowledge even of our own purpose.

In this way, we experience time as a series of moments - each moment leading to the next, each action inexorably causing the future in an imaginary  causative way, yet seen from the outside in Einstein's model, time is not a stuttering series of minutely interlinked moments. 

But I just wonder if all things have different emergent properties when grouped together, and if so whether these are in some way analagous to the duality of light.

Take animals that swarm, birds that flock, humans that crowd. Any natural phenomena that takes a new shape when joined with more of it's kind.

This may not tell us much about each of these 'waves', but, inevitably, leads us to an idea about the sum of all things, and the phrase 'in my Fathers' house, there are many mansions'.

Astrology and Probablility

So, I don't want to appear to be a person who thinks highly of Astrology. I don't.

Let me clear about that.

Okay, I have found it odd, in the past, just how accurate it can be, on occasion... and yes I am aware of how general remarks can feel like they apply to anyone. And am - can I call it - ultra-sensitive to this effect, but, you know, there have been occasions, just now and then, when I've read somebodys' birth chart and thought - "crikey, old bean, that's a close shot!" - that kind of thing.

Equally, I have seen them where I thought "huh?"

Let's put it this way then, I am happy to think of Astrology as a pseudo-science. Let's agree on that. Sorry to those, my sister among them, who aren't as happy, but, you know, those people wouldn't really want it to be 'scientific' anyway, would they? - and that leads down another rabbit hole - one I am not exploring today, as I don't have the time or the lamp...

Anyway, yes, Astrology is a pseudo-science. Good. We've sort of agreed.

So, let me ask you, what would have been the basis of this pseudo science?

I'd guess it might have been observation. You know, "please answer the following questions :- Name, DOB, Personality" or a verbal equivalent, maybe less rigorous, but probably something like that.

Now. Here's the rub. It's sort of the same basic scientific process that drives a LOT of science we see in the press. You know, people who eat a full cooked breakfast are no more likely to develop heart disease whilst people who eat an extra portion of red meat each day for lunch are 13% more likely to die each year.

Now, apologies to 'More or Less' for the latter case, but these studies are common, right? Even rife. Statistical science. A survey, a selected group of people. Observation. Outcome. Report.

Same kind of thing as Astrology, when you think about it - right? Well, not a million miles away.

In fact, both have more in common with techniques honed in what we call "The Social Sciences" - you know, Sociology, Psychology etc - than they do to, say. Chemistry.

And, what's more, they look about as reliable. You know, slightly better than chance but about as helpful as the probabilities you read in the small print for your Meds.

And here's an example, I had a procedure recently, and when I read the glossy leaflet the hospital gave me, it said: "side effects". And one of these was  - and really, I am not making this up - one was "death".

Yes, death was a possible side effect. The surgeon's hand may slip, and they gave the probability of that happening. Really. They actually quoted a probability of around 1 in 1000

Not that small actually, but what struck me is: this wasn't really what I would class as a probability. It really isn't one, when you examine it. It's more of a result of a statistical analysis of procedures so far. And of course, I know that If I lived in Middlesborough (sorry to pick on you guys!), I might have a higher probability than if I lived in Guildford, but actually, actually.... it is still not a probability. It's just a possibility with a particular record of occurrence so far.

I say this in full awareness that Doctor David Spiegelhalter, like many others, claims the is "there’s actually no such thing as probability" (Daily Telegraph 5/6/13)

But, even in my op-prep-docs, it gave this as a probability.

All of which leads me back to Astrology and the notion I would like people to entertain, that actually, when you look at it closely, it's about as useful as the documentation you get with your Meds. If you are a Scorpio, you may be a bit intense. You may not, but there's a good probability you will be more intense than any Pisces hanging about the yard. The fact that a lot of Scorpios are just .. erm... you know, ordinary, doesn't mean it isn't true.

So yes, I think we've nailed it. Astrology is a pseudo science, a bit like Sociology, Psychology, a LOT of Medical Science, and (to an extent) the National Lottery.

Can we agree on that?