Changism 2: The Bewitchment of Language in Physics

Time as a Measure of Change

1. Introduction: The Bewitchment of Language in Physics
2. Newton’s Equations
3. Thermodynamics and Classical Mechanics: Measuring Motion and Entropy
4. Relativity
5. Time in Quantum Mechanics: A Parameter of Change
6. Linguistic Entrapment: How Language Shapes Scientific Understanding
7. Redefining Temporal Concepts: Towards Linguistic Precision
8. Apendix A: A Critical Review of the Block Universe
9. Apendix B: The Space-Change Continuum: Replacing Time with Change
10. Apendix C: The Goddesses of Change: Kali and Persephone as Embodiments of Entropy and Self-Organization

The concept of time has long been a cornerstone in physics, intricately woven into theories that aim to unravel the fabric of reality. Traditionally conceived as the elusive “fourth dimension,” time is often treated as a tangible entity that flows uniformly, akin to the three spatial dimensions (Barbour 1999). This perception has been profoundly influenced by historical developments and the language used to describe them, potentially conflating metaphor with reality.

However, a closer examination of how time is utilized in science, particularly in physics, reveals a different picture. Time, as employed by scientists, is fundamentally a system of measurement based on cyclical processes. Units of time such as seconds and days are defined by counting repetitions of periodic phenomena. For instance, a second is defined by a specific number of oscillations of radiation corresponding to the transition between energy levels in a cesium-133 atom:

1 second=9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation of the cesium-133 atom
(BIPM 2019).

Similarly, a day is determined by one complete rotation of the Earth on its axis. In essence, these units are derived from counting cycles of recurring events. When physicists incorporate time into their equations, they are comparing rates of change in processes to these standard cycles, effectively measuring how one process unfolds relative to another (Rovelli 2018). This practice underscores that time, in scientific terms, is a tool for quantifying change rather than an independent entity.

Time as a Parameter of Change Across Physics

Across all branches of physics — from classical mechanics to relativity and quantum mechanics — time consistently appears in equations as a parameter for quantifying rates of change. In classical mechanics, time measures how positions and velocities of objects change, as seen in Newton’s laws of motion (Newton 1687). In quantum mechanics, time acts as an external parameter governing the evolution of quantum states (Sakurai and Napolitano 2017). Even in Einstein’s theory of relativity, where time and space are supposed to be intertwined, time functions to describe how processes vary relative to different frames of reference, not as a traversable dimension (Einstein 1916).

The Absence of Time as a Traversable Dimension

Notably, there is no experimental evidence supporting the notion of time as a traversable dimension. Experiments demonstrating time dilation — such as those involving particle accelerators or precise atomic clocks on GPS satellites — measure variations in the rate at which processes occur under different conditions like velocity or gravitational strength (Hafele and Keating 1972; Ashby 2003). These observations reflect changes in processes, not movement through a temporal dimension. The so-called “time dilation” is better understood as a discrepancy in the rate of change between two systems due to relative motion or gravitational potential, aligning with the view that time measures change.

The Changist Model: Redefining Time

The Changist model of the cosmos challenges the entrenched notion of time as an independent dimension by positing that time is a system invented to measure and compare rates of change in the universe. This perspective resonates with Ludwig Wittgenstein’s assertion that philosophical problems often arise from the “bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” (Wittgenstein 1953, §109). In physics, language shapes our understanding to such an extent that metaphors become mistaken for literal truths, obscuring the dynamic nature of reality.

In the Changist model, the universe is conceived as a space-change continuum, where change is the fundamental process driving all phenomena. Time becomes a numerical system devised to measure the rate at which changes occur, akin to how units like meters measure spatial dimensions. This aligns with operational definitions in physics, where time units are based on counting cycles of repetitive processes, such as atomic vibrations or planetary rotations (BIPM 2019).

The Space-Change Continuum offers a way to reconcile relativity with the idea that only the present moment exists. Relativistic effects like time dilation can be reinterpreted as changes occurring at different rates due to motion and gravity, all within a dynamic, ever-changing present (Rovelli 2018). This perspective maintains the predictive power of relativity while eliminating the need to treat time as a physical dimension, aligning with the empirical role of time in scientific practice.

The Power of Language in Shaping Scientific Concepts

Language is a double-edged sword in scientific discourse: it is essential for articulating complex ideas but can impose limitations through ingrained metaphors and colloquialisms (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Phrases like “time flows” or “passage of time” permeate everyday language and scientific literature, reinforcing the notion of time as a flowing medium (Fraser 2007). Such linguistic constructs can lead to conceptual misunderstandings, where time is reified into a physical entity rather than recognized as a measurement tool.

In physics, terms like “time dilation” and “spacetime continuum” further entrench the dimensional view of time (Einstein 1916). While these terms are mathematically convenient and empirically predictive, they may inadvertently suggest that time is a dimension through which objects move, similar to spatial dimensions. This linguistic framing can hinder the exploration of alternative models that might offer deeper insights into the nature of reality.

Philosophical and Linguistic Foundations

The Changist perspective draws from both philosophical insights and linguistic analysis. Henri Bergson critiqued the spatialization of time, advocating for an understanding of time in terms of duration and immediate experience rather than as a dimension (Bergson 1910). Wittgenstein highlighted how linguistic confusion leads to philosophical quandaries, directly applicable to the interpretation of time in physics (Wittgenstein 1953). By examining the language used in scientific theories, Changism identifies how metaphors and linguistic habits have solidified certain concepts, potentially hindering the development of more accurate models.

Purpose and Structure of the Article

This article aims to dissect the linguistic and conceptual underpinnings of time in physics, demonstrating how language has influenced our perception and interpretation of temporal concepts. By tracing the historical evolution from Newtonian mechanics to modern theories, we will illustrate how the notion of time as a dimension became entrenched.

We will critically examine key areas:

1. Historical Context: The development of the concept of absolute time in Newtonian mechanics and its reformulation in Einstein’s relativity.
2. Time as a Parameter of Change: How time functions in quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, and thermodynamics, consistently serving as a measure of change rather than a dimension.
3. Experimental Evidence: Highlighting the lack of empirical support for time as a traversable dimension, emphasizing that observed relativistic effects reflect changes in rates of processes.
4. Linguistic Influence: Exploring how language shapes and potentially distorts scientific concepts, drawing from philosophical critiques.
5. Redefining Temporal Terminology: Proposing a redefinition of temporal terminology to enhance linguistic precision and conceptual clarity.
6. Changism as a Cohesive Framework: Presenting the Changist model as a paradigm that emphasizes change over time, aligning with scientific observations and logical reasoning.

By addressing these areas, the article seeks to foster a more accurate understanding of time, free from linguistic bewitchment, and promote a conceptual shift with significant implications for physics and philosophy alike. Ultimately, we aim to answer the question: What exactly is time according to how the concept is used in science, especially physics? By revealing time as a measure of change based on cyclical processes, we align our understanding with both scientific practice and the dynamic nature of reality.

References:

Ashby, N. (2003). “Relativity in the Global Positioning System.” Living Reviews in Relativity, 6(1). DOI: 10.12942/lrr-2003–1.

Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bergson, H. (1910). Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness. Translated by F. L. Pogson. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM). (2019). The International System of Units (SI). 9th edn. Sèvres: BIPM.

Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769–822.

Fraser, J. T. (2007). Time and Time Again: Reports from a Boundary of the Universe. Leiden: Brill.

Hafele, J. C., and Keating, R. E. (1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains.” Science, 177(4044), 168–170.

Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London: Royal Society.

Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.

Sakurai, J. J., and Napolitano, J. (2017). Modern Quantum Mechanics. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chapter 2: Newton’s Equations

In the framework of classical mechanics established by Sir Isaac Newton, time is conceived as absolute, true, and mathematical, flowing uniformly regardless of the external universe (Newton 1687). Newton articulates this in his Principia Mathematica:

“Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external…” (Newton 1687, p. 6).

This conception positions time as an independent backdrop against which all physical events occur, separate from the spatial dimensions and unaffected by the material contents of the universe.

The Characteristics of Newtonian Time

• Uniform Flow: Time progresses at a constant rate, identical for all observers, regardless of their state of motion or position in space.
• Independence from Matter: Time exists independently of the physical processes happening within it; it is not influenced by matter or energy.
• Universal Synchronization: Clocks everywhere in the universe can, in principle, be synchronized to this absolute time, reflecting a shared temporal reality.

However, The Actual Equations Tell a Different Story:

Newton’s Second Law of Motion:

Newton’s equation describes how the rate of change of velocity (acceleration) responds to an applied force. The term time t, as used in the equation, is understood operationally — it represents the tool by which we measure the rate at which changes in position occur, not a fundamental dimension in which objects exist or move.

• Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, which itself is the rate of change of position. Time t is the scale we use to track these changes.
• t does not need to be interpreted as a flowing background through which the object moves, but simply as the yardstick for quantifying the sequence of changes in the system’s state (Occam’s Razor).

In other words, in the equation time is not viewed as a dimension that objects move through. Instead, it’s a parameter that describes the rate at which changes happen in response to forces.

Velocity:

Velocity describes how quickly the position of an object is changing. Here, t represents the measurement tool used to quantify this change in position. The operational time t tracks the rate of change in the system, but it’s not considered a dimension or a separate entity flowing alongside space.

• Velocity is the ratio of change in position x compared to a standard process (tracked by the operational time t).
• Time is just the parameter we use to compare how fast different things are changing. In practical terms, this means that different objects or systems have different rates of change, and time is used as the scale to express those differences.

Acceleration:

Acceleration represents how the rate of change of velocity is itself changing. Time t, again, is just a parameter that we use to keep track of this rate of change. Time does not flow; rather, the velocity of the object changes in relation to some other process, which we measure using operational time t.

• Acceleration is explained as a second-order change: the velocity changes in relation to a standard measuring process, and time t is that standard for comparison.
• There’s no need to invoke time as an independent, flowing dimension; instead, the focus is entirely on how changes evolve relative to some reference process.

Equations of Motion (Constant Acceleration)

The classical equations of motion, such as:

This equation describes how an object’s position changes as a result of its initial velocity and constant acceleration. The variable time t here represents the measurement tool we use to track how quickly the object’s position changes due to acceleration. The term t² appears because we’re describing how acceleration (a second-order change) affects the position.

• t is understood operationally: we compare the change in position and velocity to a reference process (such as an oscillating clock), and that’s what t represents.
• This equation accurately describes how the rates of change in position and velocity combine under constant acceleration. The difference is that time isn’t seen as a dimension through which the object moves, but as the scale we use to measure these changes.

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

In this equation, time does not appear explicitly. However, to apply this law to dynamic systems (such as planets orbiting a star), we would use time to track the motion of the objects as they respond to gravitational forces. In this context, time t is a measurement tool that tracks how the positions of the masses change due to gravitational attraction. The process of motion (e.g., a planet moving in orbit) is what’s fundamental, and time t is the reference we use to compare that motion.

Time t is understood as a practical measure of change rather than a fundamental entity or dimension. The key difference from standard interpretations lies in how physicists interpret the role of time. In this model:

• Newton’s laws treat time purely as a rate-tracking tool. It’s used to measure how quickly systems evolve, not as something that flows or exists independently of change.
• The operational definition of time (as the measure of the rate of change) provides a consistent way to understand time’s role in Newtonian mechanics while maintaining the predictive power of the equations.

Even though the equations clearly show that time is a parameter to measure change, the language of Newtonian mechanics pushes the notion of time as a flowing river, an ever-present stage on which the drama of physics unfolds. Terms like “time intervals,” “duration,” and “temporal progression” permeate the discourse, embedding the concept of absolute time deeply into the scientific mindset.

Newton’s absolute time exemplifies how linguistic and conceptual frameworks can solidify into accepted so called “truths”, veiling more acurate alternative interpretations. By treating time as an independent entity, Newtonian mechanics downplay the role of change as the fundamental process.

References

Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London: Royal Society.

Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.

3. Thermodynamics and Classical Mechanics: Measuring Motion and Entropy

In thermodynamics, time often doesn’t explicitly appear in the equations themselves, but it’s implied in the way we discuss processes like heat flow, work, and entropy increase. These quantities change and use time as an operational tool to measure these rates of change, rather than treating time as an independent, flowing entity.

The First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is a statement of energy conservation:

The first law as describing how the internal energy of a system changes as a result of heat transfer and work done. Time doesn’t explicitly appear here, but if we want to describe rates of change, we introduce time operationally:

This equation describes how the rate of change of internal energy depends on the rates at which heat is added and work is done. The time variable ttt is merely a scaling parameter that helps us quantify how fast the changes in energy, heat, and work are happening relative to one another.

• The fundamental reality is the changes in energy, heat, and work.
• Time is the tool we use to measure and compare these changes. It doesn’t flow or exist independently but helps us express the rate at which the changes occur.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics can be expressed in terms of the change in entropy:

Where S is the entropy of a system, and the inequality reflects the fact that entropy tends to increase in isolated systems.

This law reflects how entropy (disorder or randomness) changes in a system as processes unfold. Time is not flowing here, but we can use it to describe how quickly these changes occur:

This expression describes how the rate of change of entropy is always non-negative. Time t is simply a measure of how quickly entropy increases in the system — it is not a dimension or an independent aspect of the universe, but the tool we use to quantify and compare rates of change.

In this interpretation:

• Entropy increase is the fundamental change taking place.
• Time is the measure we use to track how quickly that change happens, but it isn’t itself an entity that flows or affects the process. It’s simply a tool for comparing rates of change.

The Carnot Cycle and Efficiency

The efficiency of a Carnot engine (a theoretical thermodynamic engine) is given by:

where TC is the temperature of the cold reservoir, and TH​ is the temperature of the hot reservoir.

This equation describes the efficiency of a process that moves energy between two reservoirs at different temperatures. The temperature difference drives changes in the system. Time would enter if we described how quickly these processes unfold, for instance, by introducing the rate of heat transfer:

Here, time t is a parameter used to compare the rates of heat transfer between the reservoirs. The process of heat transfer is what’s fundamental, and time helps us describe the rate at which the heat moves between the reservoirs.

Classical Mechanics

In classical mechanics, time often appears explicitly in equations describing motion and dynamics. These equations are descriptions of how processes evolve, with time serving as the measure of the rate of change.

Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy

The kinetic energy K of an object is given by:

where v is the velocity of the object. Velocity, in turn, is the rate of change of position:

kinetic energy describes how the velocity (rate of change of position) of an object contributes to its energy. The variable t, representing time, is the measuring tool that allows us to track how position changes and thus how kinetic energy evolves.

• Time is the measure of how fast the object’s position is changing, and thus how fast its kinetic energy is changing. It’s not a fundamental aspect of the universe but simply a parameter to describe the rate at which motion occurs.

Similarly, potential energy U, such as in a gravitational or elastic system, describes the capacity for future changes in motion. The system’s evolution (e.g., how it falls under gravity) can be described using time as a measure for how quickly the object moves through the gravitational field.

Conservation of Mechanical Energy

The conservation of mechanical energy states that the total mechanical energy E (sum of kinetic and potential energy) remains constant in a closed system:

This principle describes how energy is transferred between kinetic and potential forms. The rate of change of the energy in each form can be tracked over time:

Time is not fundamental here but serves as a measure for how quickly energy transitions between kinetic and potential forms. The focus remains on the energy transitions (the changes), with time used as a tool to express the rate at which these changes occur.

The Principle of Least Action

In classical mechanics, the principle of least action states that the path taken by a system between two states is the one that minimizes the action S, defined as the integral of the Lagrangian L (difference between kinetic and potential energy) over time:

According to this equation, the time parameter t is not a dimension in which the system moves — it’s the measuring tool for comparing the rates at which kinetic and potential energy exchange over different paths.

• The action S represents how the system changes from one state to another, and the integral reflects how this change is measured with respect to time. Time simply helps quantify the rate of change in the system’s energy dynamics over the path, but it isn’t fundamental.

In thermodynamics, time is a tool for measuring the rate of change rather than a fundamental dimension of reality. It allows us to describe how quantities like heat, work, and entropy change and how fast these changes occur. Time is not an independent flowing entity but a measure we use to track the evolution of systems.

According to classical mechanics’ equations, time is used to describe how positions, velocities, and energies change. Time is understood as an operational parameter for measuring and comparing rates of change, not as a separate dimension that governs the flow of events.

It is evident that time serves as a parameter measuring motion and entropy, rather than as a physical dimension. Recognizing time’s role as a measure of change allows for a more coherent interpretation of physical laws, aligning linguistic and conceptual frameworks with empirical observations.

References:

Arnold, V. I. (1989). Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. 2nd edn. New York: Springer.

Boltzmann, L. (1872). “Weitere Studien über das Wärmegleichgewicht unter Gasmolekülen.” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 66(2), 275–370.

Callen, H. B. (1985). Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics. 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.

Clausius, R. (1854). “Über eine veränderte Form des zweiten Hauptsatzes der mechanischen Wärmetheorie.” Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 93(12), 481–506.

Eddington, A. S. (1928). The Nature of the Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Galilei, G. (1638). Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche Intorno a Due Nuove Scienze. Leiden: Elsevier.

Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London: Royal Society.

Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Reif, F. (1965). Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chapter 4: Relativity

The advent of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity in the early 20th century revolutionized the understanding of time and space, uniting them into a single four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime (Einstein 1905; Einstein 1916). This fusion marked a departure from Newtonian absolute time, introducing concepts that would reshape physics profoundly.

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (1905) demonstrates that measurements of time and space are relative to the motion of the observer. One of the key revelations is the relativity of simultaneity — the idea that events perceived as simultaneous in one frame of reference may not be so in another moving at a different velocity (Einstein 1905).

The Lorentz Transformation

The Lorentz transformation describes how coordinates (including time) change for observers moving at constant velocity relative to each other. The transformation for time is:

This equation shows how rates of change (as measured by the operational time t) differ for observers in relative motion. It doesn’t imply that time itself flows differently, but rather that processes — like the ticking of clocks or the movement of objects — are measured differently depending on the observer’s velocity. The rate at which things change is affected by relative motion, and time simply provides a way of comparing how quickly or slowly these changes are happening for different observers.

Time Dilation

Time dilation describes how a clock moving at velocity vvv relative to a stationary observer ticks more slowly:

This equation shows that the rate of change of processes in the moving frame is slower compared to the stationary frame. For example, the processes governing the movement of a clock or the biological processes in a person will occur at a slower rate when observed from a frame of reference in relative motion. Here, time acts as a tool for tracking how quickly or slowly these processes unfold relative to a standard (stationary) reference frame. Time is not something that stretches or flows differently; it is a measure of the changing rate of processes due to relative velocity.

The Spacetime Interval

The spacetime interval between two events is:

where ds is the spacetime separation, dt is the time difference, and dx,dy,dz are the spatial differences.

This equation describes how spatial and temporal changes relate to each other. The term dtdtdt represents the operational time — how we measure the interval between events in terms of processes such as clock ticks. The spacetime interval ds helps us describe the relationship between changes in position and changes in what we call time. Time here doesn’t flow as a fundamental dimension; instead, it serves as a way to measure the rate at which spatial relations change between events.

Gravitational Time Dilation

This equation shows how the rate of change of processes (like the ticking of clocks or biological aging) slows down in stronger gravitational fields. Time here measures how the presence of a massive object affects the rate at which processes unfold. Clocks near the massive object tick more slowly because the processes driving the clock are happening at a slower rate due to the influence of gravity. Time doesn’t flow differently; it merely tracks how the rate of changes in the system varies in different gravitational environments.

The Energy-Momentum Relation

In special relativity, the relation between energy, momentum, and mass is:

This equation connects the changes in momentum (which represents motion) and rest energy (which represents the potential for change) in a system. The equation shows how energy is distributed between the motion of an object and its intrinsic mass. Time serves as a reference to describe how fast processes related to momentum (like motion) and mass unfold, but it’s not fundamental to the equation itself. Instead, time helps us track how the distribution of energy across these components evolves over time.

In all these equations, time serves as a measure of the rate of change of physical processes rather than as a dimension in which things move or flow. The equations describe how different rates of change (like the ticking of clocks, the movement of objects, or the unfolding of energy) vary under different conditions of motion and gravity. Time is simply a tool to measure and compare how these changes occur, not a fundamental aspect of reality.

References

Einstein, A. (1905). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Annalen der Physik, 17(10), 891–921.

Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769–822.

Hafele, J. C., and Keating, R. E. (1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains.” Science, 177(4044), 168–170.

Minkowski, H. (1908). “Space and Time.” In The Principle of Relativity (1923), translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery. New York: Dover Publications.

Chapter 5: Time in Quantum Mechanics: A Parameter of Change

Unlike classical mechanics and relativity, where time often intertwines with spatial dimensions or acts as a backdrop for events, quantum mechanics treats time distinctly — as an external parameter governing the evolution of systems.

The Schrödinger Equation

The time-dependent Schrödinger equation is the cornerstone of non-relativistic quantum mechanic:

In this equation, time represents the rate of change of the system’s wave function, which evolves according to the system’s energy. Time is not an inherent dimension flowing forward; instead, it’s the parameter we use to track how the probabilities of finding the system in certain states evolve. The wave function ψ(r,t) changes over time, and the time variable t helps us measure how fast this change occurs.

• Energy drives the evolution of the system, and time simply tracks the rate at which the wave function changes in response to that energy.
• Time is not a fundamental feature of reality; it’s a tool for understanding how the quantum state changes as the system evolves.

The Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation

The time-independent Schrödinger equation is used when the system’s Hamiltonian does not explicitly depend on time:

In this case, time doesn’t appear explicitly because the system is in a stationary state — its energy does not change. The wave function ψ(r) describes the spatial distribution of the system’s quantum state. Here, time is implicit in the sense that we’re dealing with a system that isn’t evolving dynamically over time.

• Time would enter if we were tracking how the system evolves from one energy state to another, but in this specific equation, we’re looking at an energy eigenstate where nothing changes in time.
• The absence of time here indicates that we are not concerned with the rate of change in this scenario; the system is stable in a specific energy state.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

One of the most famous results in quantum mechanics is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle:

The Probability Interpretation: Born Rule

The Born rule tells us how to interpret the wave function ψ\psiψ in terms of probabilities:

In this equation, time represents the moment at which we’re measuring the probability of finding a particle in a particular location. Time isn’t a dimension in which the particle exists or flows; it’s simply the moment when the measurement occurs. The wave function evolves in time, and the probability distribution changes accordingly.

• The probability of finding a particle at a given position changes over time, and time ttt is the parameter we use to track how that probability changes.
• Time is a measuring stick for tracking how the system’s probabilities evolve, not a physical dimension in which the particle exists.

Feynman’s Path Integral Formulation

In the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics (developed by Richard Feynman), the probability amplitude for a particle to go from point A to point B is the sum over all possible paths:

Time in this framework enters as part of the action S, which is the quantity that dictates how the system changes. The paths represent possible ways the system could evolve between two points, and time helps us compare how the system changes along each possible path.

• Time is used to measure how the action S accumulates as the particle moves through space, but it is not treated as a flowing entity.
• The action describes the evolution of the system, and time serves as a parameter that helps describe the rate of change along different paths.

The Commutation Relation

In quantum mechanics, observables like position and momentum do not commute, meaning:

This commutation relation is fundamental to the quantum nature of particles, indicating that position and momentum cannot be simultaneously known with infinite precision.

Interpretation:

This equation describes the inherent quantum uncertainty in measuring position and momentum, and time indirectly influences this through the dynamics of the system. Time doesn’t appear explicitly here, but it’s implied in how these quantities change in time during the evolution of the system.

• Time would be used to track how changes in position and momentum occur during measurements.
• The commutation relation reflects how changes in one observable affect the other, and time is the scale we use to measure those changes when we observe the system’s dynamics.

Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

The quantum harmonic oscillator is described by the solution to the time-independent Schrödinger equation for a harmonic potential:

Here, the energy levels E​ are quantized, and the wave function describes the state of the system in a potential well. Time would enter if we were describing how the state evolves dynamically, but in this time-independent case, we are only concerned with the energy levels and spatial wave functions.

• If we wanted to describe how the wave function evolves, we would use time as a parameter to track how the probability distribution changes.
• Time is not fundamental here; it would be used as a tool for measuring the rate at which the system evolves from one state to another.

In the quantum mechanical framework, time consistently appears as a parameter used to track how quantum states, observables, and probabilities change. The fundamental entities are the wave function, energy, and observables, while time provides a way to measure how these evolve.

• Time doesn’t flow independently; it’s a tool we use to describe how the quantum state or the system’s properties evolve over different processes.
• In all cases, the equations describe the rate of change in the system, with time acting as the operational parameter that allows us to compare how fast or slowly these changes occur.

References:

Busch, P. (1990). “The Time-Energy Uncertainty Relation.” In Time in Quantum Mechanics, edited by J. G. Muga, R. Sala Mayato, and Í. L. Egusquiza. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper & Row.

Kuchař, K. V. (1992). “Time and Interpretations of Quantum Gravity.” In Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, edited by G. Kunstatter, D. E. Vincent, and J. G. Williams. Singapore: World Scientific.

Pauli, W. (1933). “General Principles of Quantum Mechanics.” In Handbuch der Physik, Vol. 24, Part 1. Berlin: Springer.

Sakurai, J. J., and Napolitano, J. (2017). Modern Quantum Mechanics. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 5: Linguistic Entrapment: How Language Shapes Scientific Understanding

The exploration of time in physics is both a scientific and a linguistic-philosophical endeavor, as the language we use significantly influences our understanding of time. Metaphors rooted in everyday experience can clarify or distort scientific concepts. This chapter examines how linguistic constructs have shaped scientific thought about time, often leading to misconceptions that the Changist model seeks to address.

In science, metaphors help explain abstract concepts but can also mislead when taken literally. Terms like “time flows,” “fabric of spacetime,” and “arrow of time” create images that shape how we understand time as a tangible entity or dimension. For instance, the metaphor of time “flowing” suggests it moves uniformly, carrying events from future to past. However, from a Changist perspective, this is a linguistic construct that misrepresents reality — what we perceive as time’s flow is merely the continuous occurrence of changes in the present. Similarly, describing spacetime as a “fabric” can mislead by implying physical properties, reinforcing the misconception that time is a physical dimension akin to space. The “arrow of time” metaphor, while useful in thermodynamics, can also suggest that time itself moves, rather than simply marking the progression of change, as Changism argues.

Metaphors can reify abstract concepts, making time appear as a physical entity. This obscures the central role of change in physical phenomena, limiting the development of models like Changism, which focuses on time as a measure of change rather than a dimension. The Changist model critiques how metaphors have trapped scientific understanding, and advocates disentangling these constructs from scientific language.

Everyday language, filled with temporal expressions, also shapes how we intuitively understand time, often leading to misconceptions in physics. Common phrases like “saving time” or “running out of time” personify time, suggesting it is a commodity or resource. These biases can influence scientific thought, leading to intuitive but flawed theories, such as time travel, which extrapolate from everyday language. These linguistic habits also create resistance to new models, such as Changism, that challenge entrenched ideas.

According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language shapes cognition, implying that the way scientists describe time influences their understanding of it. The persistent use of temporal metaphors can reinforce outdated concepts, necessitating a reform in the language of physics to better reflect empirical realities, as Changism advocates.

Examples from physics, such as “time dilation,” which implies time itself stretches, show how misleading terminology can be. In reality, it is processes that occur at varying rates. Similarly, terms like “space-time continuum” can mislead by suggesting time is equivalent to spatial dimensions, while Changism encourages reframing these terms to emphasize change.

Changism calls for linguistic precision in physics, advocating for terms that reflect change rather than temporal progression. Eliminating misleading metaphors and aligning language with empirical evidence can reduce confusion and foster clearer scientific understanding.

Language plays a powerful role in shaping scientific thought. Metaphors and everyday expressions have led to entrenched misconceptions about time, influencing how physical theories are developed and interpreted. The Changist model urges a critical reassessment of the language used in physics, promoting linguistic precision and focusing on change as the fundamental process to achieve a clearer understanding of the universe.

References:

Eddington, A. S. (1928). The Nature of the Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769–822.

Fraser, J. T. (2007). Time and Time Again: Reports from a Boundary of the Universe. Leiden: Brill.

Hafele, J. C., and Keating, R. E. (1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains.” Science, 177(4044), 168–170.

Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London: Royal Society.

Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by J. B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chapter 6: Redefining Temporal Concepts: Towards Linguistic Precision

The exploration of time within physics has revealed significant conceptual and linguistic challenges. As the previous chapters have demonstrated, time is consistently utilized as a parameter measuring change rather than an independent dimension. The persistent use of language that treats time as a physical entity has led to misunderstandings and hindered the development of more accurate models of reality. This chapter proposes a redefinition of temporal terminology to enhance linguistic precision, aligning scientific language with the Changist model. By refining the terminology used in physics, we aim to foster clearer communication and promote conceptual clarity that could lead to advancements in scientific theories and models.

7.1 Proposing New Terminology in Physics

The language of physics is a powerful tool that shapes our understanding of complex phenomena. However, when metaphors and colloquialisms become entrenched, they can obscure the true nature of the concepts they describe. To align with the Changist model and emphasize the fundamental role of change, we propose redefining and refining the terminology related to time in physics.

7.1.1 Eliminating Temporal Metaphors

Metaphorical expressions such as “time flows,” “passage of time,” and “traveling through time” anthropomorphize time and suggest that it is a substance or dimension that can be traversed. To avoid these misconceptions, we propose:

• Using “Rate of Change” Instead of “Flow of Time”: This emphasizes that what is observed is the progression of changes, not the movement through a temporal medium.
• Example: Replace “As time flows, the system evolves” with “As the system changes, its state evolves.”
• Avoiding “Time Travel” Terminology: Since time is not a dimension to move through, references to “time travel” should be reframed in terms of causality or hypothetical alterations in rates of change.
• Example: Instead of “Traveling back in time,” use “Altering the sequence of events” or “Reversing processes.”

7.1.2 Redefining Key Terms

Several key terms in physics could be redefined to reflect the Changist emphasis on change:

• Time Dilation: This term suggests that time itself is stretching or contracting. We propose the term “Rate of Change Variation” to indicate that what varies is the rate at which processes occur under different conditions.
• Example: “Rate of Change Variation occurs due to relative velocity differences between observers.”
• Spacetime Continuum: This term fuses space and time into a single entity, reinforcing the dimensional view of time. We suggest using “Space-Change Framework” to highlight that space provides the arena for change, which is the fundamental process.
• Example: “In the Space-Change Framework, the geometry of space influences the dynamics of change.”
• Temporal Dimension: Referring to time as a dimension equates it with spatial dimensions. We propose using “Change Parameter” or “Temporal Parameter” to indicate that time is a variable measuring change.
• Example: “The Temporal Parameter tracks the progression of processes within the system.”

7.1.3 Clarifying Concepts in Relativity

In the context of relativity, certain terms and concepts could be rearticulated:

• Proper Time: Instead of viewing proper time as the time measured along an object’s worldline in spacetime, we can define it as the “Accumulated Change Along a Trajectory.”
• Example: “The accumulated change along the object’s trajectory differs due to its relative motion.”
• Worldlines: Traditionally representing an object’s path through spacetime, worldlines can be reframed as “Change Trajectories” to emphasize the sequence of changes an object undergoes.
• Example: “The particle’s change trajectory illustrates its dynamic evolution.”

7.1.4 Emphasizing Operational Definitions

Physics often relies on operational definitions, where concepts are defined by the operations used to measure them (Bridgman 1927). By emphasizing operational definitions, we ground terms in measurable processes:

• Second: Defined by a specific number of oscillations of a cesium atom, highlighting that time units are based on counting cycles of change.
• Example: “A second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to cesium-133 transitions (BIPM 2019).”
• Clocks: Instruments that count cycles of a consistent process, serving as tools to measure rates of change.
• Example: “An atomic clock measures the rate of change by counting atomic oscillations.”

7.1.5 Reframing Theoretical Constructs

Theoretical constructs that rely on temporal dimensions can be revisited:

• Four-Dimensional Spacetime: Instead of treating spacetime as a four-dimensional manifold, we can describe physical theories in terms of “Three-Dimensional Space with Dynamic Processes.”
• Example: “Physical phenomena unfold in three-dimensional space through continuous dynamic processes influenced by energy and matter.”

7.2 Implications for Scientific Models and Theories

Redefining temporal terminology can significantly impact scientific models and theories. Aligning language with the Changist focus on change improves conceptual clarity and may lead to new approaches to persistent issues in physics. By adopting more precise language, misconceptions about time as a physical dimension can be reduced, better reflecting empirical observations and improving communication among scientists and educators.

A shift in terminology could also foster theoretical advances, offering fresh perspectives on unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics by centering the framework on change. It might inspire new models to address unresolved problems like gravity or dark energy. Revisiting fundamental equations from a Changist perspective would focus on how changes in physical systems relate to forces and energy, using time as a parameter that measures change. For instance, the Schrödinger equation could be interpreted as describing a system’s continuous evolution, rather than as a function of time. Similarly, relativistic equations would emphasize how relative motion affects the rate of change in processes, rather than altering time itself.

In education, adopting this revised terminology could improve curricula by fostering an accurate understanding of time, encouraging students to think critically about foundational concepts and inspiring innovation. This change could also extend beyond physics, prompting philosophers of science to reassess the metaphysical assumptions underlying scientific theories and facilitating interdisciplinary research between physics, philosophy, linguistics, and other fields.

However, this shift will face challenges. Established terminology is deeply ingrained, and changing it will require consensus and adaptation. Existing mathematical frameworks are based on the current language, so any revisions must maintain mathematical consistency and predictive accuracy. To implement these changes, new terminology should be introduced gradually in academic discourse, publications, and conferences. Collaboration with scientific organizations and educators will be essential to update standards and curricula, and ongoing refinement will ensure that the new language evolves with developments in the field.

This linguistic shift not only clarifies existing theories but also encourages the development of models that more accurately reflect the dynamic processes governing the universe. Embracing change as the cornerstone of physical reality, supported by precise and consistent language, holds the potential to resolve longstanding conceptual challenges and advance the frontiers of science.

References:

Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM). (2019). The International System of Units (SI). 9th edn. Sèvres: BIPM.

Bridgman, P. W. (1927). The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan.

Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769–822.

Fraser, J. T. (2007). Time and Time Again: Reports from a Boundary of the Universe. Leiden: Brill.

Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Maudlin, T. (2002). Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London: Royal Society.

Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.

Sakurai, J. J., and Napolitano, J. (2017). Modern Quantum Mechanics. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

Appendix A: Critical Review of the Block Universe

The block universe, or eternalism, presents time as a dimension like space, where past, present, and future coexist within a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. This view, drawn from a literal interpretation of Minkowski’s spacetime in relativity, suggests that the flow of time is an illusion and that all events are fixed. However, a key issue with this model is its failure to explain the dynamism of our lived experience. If all moments in time exist statically, the perception of change and time’s flow is illusory, leading to circular reasoning: the illusion of change itself needs an explanation. Since even the neural processes producing this illusion would be static, the model cannot account for how this illusion arises, resulting in an infinite regress. Without recognizing real change, the block universe cannot explain our experience of time.

Moreover, the block universe posits that we perceive time’s passage by moving through it, yet movement implies change. This introduces a paradox — movement within a static framework contradicts the block universe’s premise of fixed moments, leaving the experience of progression through time unexplainable. This issue may stem from linguistic and conceptual confusions, similar to those addressed by Changism, which argues that reifying time as a dimension conflates mathematical abstraction with reality. Terms like “spacetime continuum” may lead us to mistakenly interpret time as a physical entity instead of a parameter that measures change.

In contrast, process philosophy and presentism offer alternative views that emphasize change and the primacy of the present. Process philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead argue that reality is made up of events and processes in constant flux, with time as a measure of this progression. Presentism, meanwhile, holds that only the present exists, aligning with common-sense experience. In physics, presentism accommodates relativistic effects like time dilation by interpreting them as variations in the rate of change under different conditions, such as varying speeds or gravitational fields.

One common objection to presentism is its apparent conflict with relativity, which lacks a universal present moment due to the relativity of simultaneity. However, Changism reconciles this by distinguishing between time and change, suggesting that relativistic effects reflect differences in change rates rather than evidence of time as a dimension. This allows presentism to align with relativity’s empirical predictions without endorsing the block universe.

The block universe also struggles to account for emergent phenomena, which arise from dynamic processes and interactions, such as consciousness, ecosystems, or economic markets. Emergence requires genuine change and development over time, which a static model cannot represent. By contrast, Changism, rooted in presentism and process philosophy, embraces dynamism as central to reality, with time serving as a measure of continuous change. This approach aligns both with subjective experience and empirical observations, avoiding the contradictions of static models.

Einstein’s theory of relativity is often linked to the block universe, but his views on time were more nuanced. He acknowledged the difficulty of reconciling the subjective experience of time with the relativistic framework, famously calling the distinction between past, present, and future a “stubbornly persistent illusion.” However, this was more a philosophical reflection than an endorsement of a static model. Einstein also recognized the limitations of physical theories in capturing the entirety of reality.

In conclusion, the block universe’s static treatment of time faces significant challenges in explaining dynamism, emergent phenomena, and our subjective experience of time. Process philosophy and presentism, as embodied in Changism, offer a more coherent and empirically grounded model by focusing on change as fundamental. By redefining time as a measure of change, Changism preserves the predictive power of relativity while avoiding the contradictions of static models, promoting a more accurate and dynamic interpretation of the universe.

Bedau, M. A. (1997). “Weak Emergence.” Philosophical Perspectives, 11, 375–399.

Bigelow, J. (1996). “Presentism and Properties.” Philosophical Perspectives, 10, 35–52.

Craig, W. L. (2001). Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Einstein, A. (1949). “Autobiographical Notes.” In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, edited by P. A. Schilpp, 1–95. La Salle: Open Court.

Einstein, A. (1955). Letter to the Besso family, quoted in Holton, G. (1973). Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Esfeld, M. (1999). “Quantum Holism and the Philosophy of Mind.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11–12), 23–38.

Maudlin, T. (2002). Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

McTaggart, J. M. E. (1908). “The Unreality of Time.” Mind, 17(68), 457–474.

Petkov, V. (2005). “Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?” Philosophy and Foundations of Physics, 1, 207–228.

Putnam, H. (1967). “Time and Physical Geometry.” Journal of Philosophy, 64(8), 240–247.

Rietdijk, C. W. (1966). “A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity.” Philosophy of Science, 33(4), 341–344.

Skow, B. (2012). “Why Does Time Pass?” Noûs, 46(2), 223–242.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality. New York: Macmillan.

Appendix B: The Space-Change Continuum: Replacing Time with Change

B.1 Introduction

The Changist model emphasizes change as the fundamental process driving reality, with time serving as a parameter to measure this change. Building upon this perspective, the concept of the Space-Change Continuum (SCC) offers a coherent framework that further elucidates how replacing time with change resolves conceptual contradictions, particularly those associated with the block universe model. This appendix explores the Space-Change Continuum, integrating philosophical insights from Aristotle with modern physics, and demonstrates how this approach aligns with empirical observations while providing a more consistent metaphysical foundation.

B.2 The Semantic Shift: Change as a Fundamental Dimension

The key issue with the block universe model is its treatment of time as a fixed dimension in which past, present, and future coexist simultaneously (Rietdijk 1966; Putnam 1967). This perspective leads to paradoxes and contradictions, especially when accounting for dynamism and causality (McTaggart 1908). By shifting the focus from “time” to “change” as the primary dimension of reality, these contradictions dissolve. Instead of viewing time as a linear entity through which we “travel,” we recognize change as the core process driving reality (Heraclitus, as cited in Kirk et al. 1983).

B.3 The Space-Change Continuum Framework

In the Space-Change Continuum, the universe consists of:

• Three Spatial Dimensions: Length, width, and height define where things are in space.
• One Change Dimension: Change replaces time as the fundamental dimension, representing the evolution and transformation of entities according to their nature and physical laws.

This framework posits that objects and systems do not move along a temporal axis but evolve or change according to their intrinsic properties and the governing laws of physics (Barbour 1999).

B.4 Integration with Relativity

A.4.1 How Change Replaces Time in Relativity: Einstein’s theory of relativity traditionally describes events in a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, treating time as intertwined with space (Einstein 1905; Minkowski 1908). By reinterpreting time as change, relativistic effects can be understood as variations in the rate of change due to factors like velocity and gravitational fields.

• Time Dilation as Rate of Change Variation: In special relativity, time dilation describes how moving clocks tick slower compared to stationary ones. By viewing this as a difference in the rate of change, we understand that high velocities affect the internal processes of objects, causing them to change more slowly relative to an observer at rest (Rovelli 2018).
• Δτ=γ−1Δt
• where Δτ is the proper time (rate of change for the moving object), Δtis the coordinate time for the stationary observer, and γ is the Lorentz factor.
• Gravitational Time Dilation: In general relativity, stronger gravitational fields slow down the rate of change in processes. Objects in intense gravitational fields experience slower rates of change due to the curvature of space affecting physical interactions (Einstein 1916; Misner et al. 1973).

By replacing “time” with “change,” these phenomena are understood as variations in how quickly systems evolve, not as movement through a temporal dimension.

B.5 Causality in the Space-Change Continuum

Causality is reframed as the transformation of potential into actuality through structured change (Aristotle, Metaphysics, translated by Ross 1924). Instead of ordering events in time, causality involves the sequential unfolding of changes, where each present state contains the potential for future transformations.

• Physical Laws as Governing Forms: The laws of physics dictate the form of these transformations, describing how entities change based on their nature (Davies 1995).
• Eliminating Temporal Paradoxes: By grounding causality in change, we avoid paradoxes associated with time travel and predestination inherent in the block universe model (Price 1996).

For example, a ball rolling down a hill is changing according to the laws of gravity and motion. Its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy through the process of change dictated by physical laws (Halliday et al. 2013).

B.6 Aristotle’s Concepts: Potentiality and Actuality

Aristotle’s philosophy provides a foundation for understanding change in the SCC:

• Potentiality (dynamis) refers to the possible ways an entity or system can change based on its nature and conditions (Aristotle, Metaphysics).
• Actuality (energeia) is the realization of these potentials through change.

The laws of physics describe how potential becomes actuality, governing the specific forms of change for different entities (Heisenberg 1958). This perspective aligns with quantum mechanics, where particles exist in superpositions of potential states that become actualized upon observation (Cohen-Tannoudji et al. 1977).

B.7 The Form of Change and the Nature of Objects

Different entities undergo change according to their inherent properties and governing laws:

• Subatomic Particles: Change according to quantum mechanics, evolving through probabilistic interactions (Dirac 1930).
• Celestial Bodies: Change according to gravitational laws, following trajectories determined by mass and spacetime curvature (Misner et al. 1973).
• Biological Systems: Change through processes governed by genetics and environmental interactions, as described in evolutionary biology (Mayr 2001).

This interpretation ties change directly to the nature of the object, meaning that change follows the form embedded in the entity’s properties and interactions (Prigogine 1980).

B.8 Resolving Contradictions in the Block Universe

By adopting the SCC, we address key contradictions inherent in the block universe model:

• Dynamic Change vs. Static Time: The block universe posits a static spacetime where all events are fixed, yet it invokes dynamic processes to explain the experience of change (Skow 2012). The SCC recognizes change as fundamental, eliminating the need for paradoxical explanations.
• Causality without Determinism: In the block universe, causality is problematic due to the coexistence of past, present, and future. The SCC frames causality as the structured unfolding of change, preserving causal relationships without implying a predetermined sequence of events (Price 1996).
• Avoiding Infinite Regress: The block universe’s reliance on illusions to explain change leads to infinite regress. By acknowledging change as the basis of reality, the SCC avoids this issue entirely (Esfeld 1999).

B.9 Conclusion: The Space-Change Continuum

The Space-Change Continuum offers a coherent and empirically grounded understanding of reality that aligns with modern physics and the Changist model. In this framework:

• Change is Fundamental: Entities evolve and actualize potential according to their nature.
• Physical Laws as Forms: The laws of physics represent the forms governing the transformation of potential into actuality.
• Causality through Change: Causality is the structured unfolding of changes, grounded in the properties of entities and their interactions.

By replacing time with change as the fundamental dimension alongside space, we resolve conceptual paradoxes and align our understanding with both empirical observations and philosophical insights.

Aristotle. (1924). Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., and Laloë, F. (1977). Quantum Mechanics. Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Wiley.

Davies, P. (1995). About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Einstein, A. (1905). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Annalen der Physik, 17(10), 891–921.

Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769–822.

Esfeld, M. (1999). “Quantum Holism and the Philosophy of Mind.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11–12), 23–38.

Halliday, D., Resnick, R., and Walker, J. (2013). Fundamentals of Physics. 10th edn. Hoboken: Wiley.

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper & Row.

Heraclitus. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. 2nd edn., edited by G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.

McTaggart, J. M. E. (1908). “The Unreality of Time.” Mind, 17(68), 457–474.

Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., and Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Minkowski, H. (1908). “Space and Time.” In The Principle of Relativity (1923), translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery. New York: Dover Publications.

Price, H. (1996). Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. New York: Oxford University Press.

Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Putnam, H. (1967). “Time and Physical Geometry.” Journal of Philosophy, 64(8), 240–247.

Rietdijk, C. W. (1966). “A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity.” Philosophy of Science, 33(4), 341–344.

Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.

Skow, B. (2012). “Why Does Time Pass?” Noûs, 46(2), 223–242.

Appendix C:

The Goddesses of Change: Kali and Persephone as Embodiments of Entropy and Self-Organization

There is something primal in the way ancient cultures understood change, in how they gazed at the abyss and saw the dance of gods. In the chaotic heart of transformation, Kali and Persephone rise like the twin Goddesses of Change, each an embodiment of forces both destructive and creative. Kali, the dark goddess of the Indian pantheon, is entropy made flesh. Persephone, queen of the Greek underworld, is the cycle of death and rebirth incarnate. Together, these figures tear through the veil of order and reveal the unrelenting churn of the cosmos, much like the Changist model, where change alone is the eternal pulse driving everything. They are not symbols of comfort but mirrors to the truth — change is inevitable, and it cares not for the fragile notions of permanence that haunt men’s dreams.

Kali

Kali doesn’t arrive quietly. She crashes into the scene, a storm of limbs and laughter, her eyes gleaming with the inevitability of endings. Time itself quivers under her gaze, for Kali is the goddess of destruction, of entropy, of the decay that strips everything down to its bones. She is not merely a figure of fear — she is the recognition that destruction is the precursor to transformation.

Destruction is necessary, a dark grace that sweeps away what is stagnant. In the same way entropy, in its relentless advance, dismantles the old structures, Kali’s chaos is the mother of all renewal. Without her, there would be no space for creation. It is entropy’s work, this undoing of order, and Kali’s dance matches the rhythm of a universe that craves disorder to fuel its own rebirth. She is entropy personified, the decay that gives birth to new possibilities, the ruin that allows for the emergence of something unexpected.

But Kali is not only a devourer. Beneath the violence of her destruction lies the strange miracle of transformation. From chaos comes self-organization, from death comes life. Kali is not satisfied with mere endings — she clears the ground for something new to rise, something unanticipated. She is both the storm and the calm after, the shattered pieces that rearrange themselves into a new order. Her role in the universe is complex, balancing the chaotic and the organized, a reminder that even in the most terrifying destruction, there is the possibility of something greater being born from the ashes.

Persephone

Persephone, on the other hand, is more subtle in her manifestation, but no less powerful. She descends into the underworld, swallowed by darkness, her skin cold with the inevitability of death. Yet, she does not remain there forever. Her myth is cyclical — down she goes, only to rise again, bringing with her the spring, the rebirth of life, the reordering of the world.

Her journey into Hades is a descent into entropy itself. Life withers in her absence, winter tightening its grip on the world. This is decay, the slow crumbling of life into the silence of death. Like the increasing entropy in a closed system, Persephone’s descent marks the breakdown of all that once bloomed. But it’s necessary — without the rot of autumn and the freeze of winter, the world could not be reborn.

And yet, Persephone does rise. Spring follows winter as surely as day follows night, and her return is the reordering of life, the self-organization that emerges from entropy’s cold grasp. She is the reminder that chaos is never final, that the universe, no matter how dark, finds its way back to order. In her hands, death and rebirth are intertwined — each feeding into the other, each necessary for the continuous motion of the world.

Entropy and Self-Organization: The Two Sides of Change

Kali and Persephone do not simply represent ancient stories; they are the raw, unspoken truths of existence. They are entropy and self-organization made flesh, a divine reflection of the cosmic forces that shape everything, from stars to souls. In them, the Changist model finds mythic expression, a narrative thread that links modern physics with the primal, universal understanding of change.

In the cold logic of thermodynamics, entropy reigns supreme, driving systems toward disorder. But even in the midst of chaos, there are moments when order springs forth unbidden. Snowflakes form, life emerges — complexity arises from the very breakdown that entropy demands. It is a paradox, one that Kali and Persephone embody. In their myths, the universe whispers its secrets, showing how entropy and self-organization are not opposing forces but twin aspects of the same process.

The ancients might not have known the precise equations, but they understood. They felt the pull of entropy in Kali’s destruction, saw the emergence of new forms in Persephone’s return. These myths do not merely explain — they resonate. They reach into the human soul and reveal the truth of change in a way no formula ever could. They make the abstract visceral, tangible, undeniable.

The Eleusinian Mysteries

In the rites of Eleusis, where Persephone’s descent and return were enacted, the mysteries of life, death, and transformation were laid bare. The initiates, shrouded in darkness, were led through rituals that mirrored the cycle of decay and rebirth, glimpsing a truth deeper than words. This was not mere metaphor but an encounter with the eternal forces of change.

Through the symbolism of the harvest, the death and renewal of crops, the Eleusinian Mysteries brought home the truth that all life moves in cycles, that every death is merely a prelude to rebirth. This cyclical understanding of life mirrors the Changist view that change is constant, and through it, one finds the path to a higher understanding of existence itself.

Kali’s nature is the paradox of destruction birthing creation. Her chaotic dance brings about a balance in the cosmos, where entropy makes way for new possibilities, and self-organization rises from the very heart of disorder.

Persephone’s journey is not merely a seasonal tale but a revelation, an unveiling of the deepest truths, what the Greeks called *aletheia*. Her descent strips away the illusions of permanence, her return brings with it the clear light of understanding.

Through their stories, we glimpse the truth that destruction and creation are two faces of the same force, that change is the only constant. The myths are timeless, echoing modern scientific understanding, and in them, we find the strange comfort that nothing is permanent, not even the chaos.

Boltzmann, L. (1877). “Über die Beziehung zwischen dem zweiten Hauptsatze der mechanischen Wärmetheorie und der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung respektive den Sätzen über das Wärmegleichgewicht.” Wiener Berichte, 76, 373–435.

Burkert, W. (1985). Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: An Introduction. 3rd edn. Berlin: Springer.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row.

Kinsley, D. R. (1986). Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kernyi, K. (1960). Eleusis: Archetypal Image of Mother and Daughter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.

McDermott, R. F. (1975). Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna. New York: State University of New York Press.

Mylonas, G. E. (1961). Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Nicolis, G., and Prigogine, I. (1989). Exploring Complexity: An Introduction. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Prigogine, I., and Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books.

Sen Gupta, S. (1986). The Cult of the Goddess Kali. Delhi: Clarion Books.

Further Reading:

Changism: Change and Time in a Presentist Universe: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/change-and-time-in-a-presentist-universe-3aec919829ae

Changism 3: Timeless Eternal Change: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/changism-3-timeless-eternal-change-b87ef0e2780b

Logos: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/logos-0717f9fb6cde

Existence is necessarily eternal and uncreated — why something instead of nothing: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/existence-is-necessarily-eternal-and-uncreated-5fe57626a60b