I suggest that the brain in any instant
Always contains as it were
Several stills of a movie
They correspond to different positions
Of objects we think we see moving
The idea is that
It is this collection of stills
All present in any one instant
That stands in psychophysical parallel
With the motion we actually see
—Julian Barbour, The End of Time (1999)
This collection of stills.
I'm making an effort to fill my mandatory downtime with uplifting personal productivity. It ain't easy. My previous post (still unfinished) was cathartic until boredom set in. I long ago learned to harness my attention deficit by noodling with several projects in parallel; as soon as one becomes too important/ too near to completion/ too boring, my work-avoidance system kicks in and almost any other task can strike me as fascinating. Rather than shave or clean the kitchen, I indulge tangents and let myself fiddle with something previously left in stasis until it becomes too important/ too near to completion/ too boring. This may not be the work ethic of prolific artists past and present, but I enjoy it. Being an underachiever—possessing no drive to be seen achieving—everything I do is for personal gratification. This means finishing something always takes a backseat to working on something. I may never cross a finish line, but I am never idle. I keep myself occupied and that makes me happy. All of this being said, I'll admit to appreciating the satisfaction inherent in "completing" a creative project. I just haven't experienced it often.
This brings me back to the subject of my previous post: terminal illness—brain tumors. Even I would've expected some profound driving kick in the pants. Approximately half of those given my diagnosis are dead within 5 months. From where the fuck else should I expect motivation to spring? I'm cruising through 11 now. People talk about "bucket lists" but I don't have one. This shit should be feet-to-the-fire compelling, but my feet are still cool and a bit moist in my woolen socks—what's that about? Even so, something is going on. I wouldn't be rubbing my writing gland raw against the chafing of these blog posts if not attempting to heat something up, cause a little swelling, a rush of oxygen-rich blood to my functional parts, a light fever maybe leading to a creative swoon. But still, almost nothing. Almost... It's possible I smell something. It could be my imagination, but there may be a tiny ember dimly aglow. ...Or it could be a rash.
Now I'm digging through old notebooks and hard drives for kindling (and soothing creams). I don't necessarily expect anything to actually burn, to blaze up and fuel me through some opus. It's a warm, obvious fantasy, but impossible to indulge for long due to its almost total lack of cogency. I see no clear bright horizon beyond which glory must wait. And I see no particular vehicle as suitable transport to carry me through a quest for one. But I won't be idle. I might do donuts or veer into curbs and through ditches and barricades and police tape, but I'll keep moving. Maybe I'll bump into something useful, something to inspire...
Like this old fanboy email written to one of my favorite mathematical physicists, Julian Barbour.
FirstName: geoff
LastName: gibson
Country: us
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2004
Message: Dear Dr. Barbour,
My name is Geoff Gibson. When pressed, and with growing frequency and confidence, I claim to be an artist. Though I have no formal science or mathematics education (beyond high school was art school), I am fascinated by fundamental physics. I've read countless books of increasing depth and detail and have gained a satisfying grasp (for my own purposes) of many key concepts. Several authors have managed to lead me through explanations and leave me grinning when I get it. That elusive surge of comprehension, however fleeting, powers me past abstract math and migraines.
Not being familiar with your name or work, I was put off by the article in Discover Magazine, Dec. 2000. Your assertions seemed novel, if a little silly (my deepest apologies). After hearing you speak on NPR, I decided to give The End of Time a try based on your apparent sanity, obvious intelligence and pleasant personality. I was sure you were wrong through the first half. By the two-thirds mark I was in awe. Far more than self-consistent, your theory was somehow consistent with the intuitive images and impressions I'd been collecting through years of reading and years more of living. Once it popped into place, it was obviously, beautifully, simply right.
This recognition and subsequent adjustment to my worldview are sources of joy, increasing comfort and ongoing frustration. My brain seems just big enough to accommodate intuitive images without the whys and hows and words required to relate them to others. Not being a physicist, or more, being an artist, my attempts to discuss these new ideas and implications with friends have not made me any new ones. Luckily, the few I have are good and tolerant. Enthusiastic, inarticulate musing on the fundamental, counter-intuitive static nature of reality is a quaint affectation they've decided to accept as long as I just shut up occasionally.
On that note, I began this message to gush gratitude and lob questions. Restraining the former (somewhat), I'll forgo the latter. Though I have many, I fear they are not yet well formed (read: stupid). They have, regardless, led me to further reading on topics emerging since Alpha: game theory, evolutionary biology, consciousness, human nature. All equally impossible for me to relate in conversation, but exhilarating in the richness they add to the structure of me. It's this thrill that has motivated me to actively exercise my creativity for the first time in years. I now (think I) understand the act of creation to be a manifest iteration of that first deviation and an irrevocable addition to whatever comes next.
Pretty cool.
I humbly offer my thanks for your insight and the kind gift of abutting your Now to mine.
Sincerely,
Geoff Gibson
And the kind and genial great man's reply.
From: Julian Barbour
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004
To: geoff gibson
Subject: Re: Feedback
Thank you for your very kind words. I am sure there are lots of things we could discuss together. If ever you are over in England, do consider a visit. I am in the process of creating The Leibniz Institute and hope to welcome a few paying guests to help pay for the research activities. In the meanwhile I wish you the very best of success with your creative work. Personally, I think the intuitive insights of artists are often very close to the physical bedrock of the world.
Best wishes,
Julian Barbour
Just a few days ago I checked his site again for recent publications and was pleased to find several I hadn't noticed before. I'm currently bouncing between the following four papers:
• The definition of Mach's Principle | Abstract: Two definitions of Mach’s principle are proposed. Both are related to gauge theory, are universal in scope and amount to formulations of causality that take into account the relational nature of position, time, and size. One of them leads directly to general relativity and may have relevance to the problem of creating a quantum theory of gravity. >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3368v1.pdf
• Conformal superspace: the configuration space of general relativity | Abstract: It has long been considered that conformal superspace is the natural configuration space for canonical general relativity. However, this was never definitively demonstrated. We have found that the standard conformal method of solving the Einstein constraints has an unexpected extra symmetry. This allows us to complete the project. We show that given a point and a velocity in conformal superspace, the Einstein equations generate a unique curve in conformal superspace. >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3559v1.pdf
• Einstein gravity as a 3D conformally invariant theory | Abstract: We give an alternative description of the physical content of general relativity that does not require a Lorentz invariant spacetime. Instead, we find that gravity admits a dual description in terms of a theory where local size is irrelevant. The dual theory is invariant under foliation preserving 3–diffeomorphisms and 3D conformal transformations that preserve the 3–volume (for the spatially compact case). Locally, this symmetry is identical to that of Hoˇrava–Lifshitz gravity in the high energy limit but our theory is equivalent to Einstein gravity. Specifically, we find that the solutions of general relativity, in a gauge where the spatial hypersurfaces have constant mean extrinsic curvature, can be mapped to solutions of a particular gauge fixing of the dual theory. Moreover, this duality is not accidental. We provide a general geometric picture for our procedure that allows us to trade foliation invariance for conformal invariance. The dual theory provides a new proposal for the theory space of quantum gravity. >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.2481v2.pdf
• The link between general relativity and shape dynamics | Abstract: We define the concept of a linking theory and show how two equivalent gauge theories possessing different gauge symmetries generically arise from a linking theory. We show that under special circumstances a linking theory can be constructed from a given gauge theory through “Kretchmannization” of a given gauge theory, which becomes one of the two theories related by the linking theory. The other, so-called “dual” gauge theory, is then a gauge theory of the symmetry underlying the “Kretschmannization”. We then prove the equivalence of General Relativity and Shape Dynamics, a theory with fixed foliation but spatial conformal invariance. This streamlines the rather complicated construction of this equivalence performed in. We use this streamlined argument to extend the result to General Relativity with asymptotically flat boundary conditions. The improved understanding of linking theories naturally leads to the Lagrangian formulation of Shape Dynamics, which allows us to partially relate the degrees of freedom. >> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.5974v3.pdf
Once through these papaers, I plan to finish my second pass through Benjamin Solomon's An Introduction to Gravity Modification (2012). Then I'll gleefully give Barbour's The End of TIme its fourth read. While pushing through such material, I may not be playing my guitar, writing my novel or painting a masterpiece—or base jumping or helping poor people or stray animals—but I find it impossible to conceive of the time as anything other than well-spent. It's good for the melon and my melon is in dire need.
No comments:
Post a Comment