Kineman, J.J., and J.R. Kineman. 2000. Life and space-time cosmology. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. ISSS, Toronto, ON. CD-ROM.

 

LIFE AND SPACE-TIME COSMOLOGY

 

John J. Kineman and Jesse R. Kineman

The Nexial Institute

Boulder, CO

jjk@nexial.org

 

 

The view that life is a fundamental part of nature suggests that it must involve a "complementarity"[1] between material nature (syntactic structure and composition) and formal nature (semantic definition and function), both of which may be considered theoretically "real" (Kineman and Kineman, 1999). Our investigation is here extended to a cosmological world view to explore the generality of these conclusions.  We present an alternative to traditional space-time cosmology in terms of a geometrical model of the space-time universe. A simple, self-referential model is constructed in a radially Euclidean complex space (modified Minkowsky space) based on the assumption of universal semantic closure. This model is shown to be consistent with many aspects of modern cosmology, including the Hubble expansion and special relativity theory, and makes testable cosmological predictions. A feature of this model is that it represents temporal singularity (the "big bang") as a perceptual phenomena in an otherwise infinite abstract temporal domain. This model in multiple instances may suggest a fundamental geometry for perception and universal self-organization. These exploratory views are seen as contributing to fundamental definitions of life that encompass psychological phenomena.

 

Keywords

Life, complexity, perception, cosmology, space-time

 

 

Introduction

 

It is not our intention to challenge the history of the cosmos that is being worked out in extreme detail back to the "Planck length" of 10-35 meters. This paper is concerned instead with the fundamental nature of space and time as a generic problem that is thought to be intimately involved with perception and thus fundamental properties of life. A model is presented for the origin of space-time based on principles of special relativity and complexity. It is applied to cosmology to test its consistency and generality. The view we present challenges basic concepts of reality, and suggests a dramatically different view of the cosmos that has yet to be reconciled with other theories or observational tests. We present this view in this early stage to stimulate further thought and to suggest directions in which fundamental paradoxes may be handled to provide a more unified basis for theories of life.

 

The arguments that follow began from a consideration of basic principles that seem evident in complex and living systems. Robert Rosen's view of complexity and the "modeling relation" in nature offered a critically important perspective on how to structure these ideas. Our results constitute a synthesis of principles that might otherwise be considered contradictory. As in any such effort, the result must be re-applied to nature to see if the new foundation will work, and what new predictions it might make. We would stress, however, that a failure of this synthesis would not constitute a failure of the basic principles we are attempting to integrate.

 

We attempt to apply principles of living systems to physical "reality" for two reasons: First, it would be much easier to explain biology if properties of life and complex systems turn out to be fundamental to nature rather than emergent. Second, the same questions appear at the foundation of physics and in cosmology, hence it might be easier to explain those phenomena as well. We thus focus on the complex nature of space and time because these measures underlie the definition of material states, and thus all objective systems.

 

Cosmology is the obvious laboratory for testing our premise that complexity must appear in the nature of perception and space-time. Our non-conventional reasoning proceeds from biology to physics, and attempts to incorporate or validate the following principles of complex systems:

1. Natural wholeness and semantic closure

2. Natural indeterminacy and non-locality

3. Physical equivalence and relativity

4. Complementarity and modeling relations (the Rosen world view)

 

SCIENCE AND REALITY

 

From quanta to living systems we are increasingly finding evidence that nature may not be fully determined in advance of inquiry. Science is faced with the problem of explaining indeterminate physical reality on the one hand and self-determining biological reality on the other. Resolving indeterminate or complex behavior, by whatever means,  involves an "act of abstraction" (Rosen, 1985a) that adds semantic or functional information to an otherwise undefined syntax. Yet nowhere in the common view of physical reality is there a source for such abstraction.

 

Science employs mental abilities for abstract reasoning and mathematics to model reality. Yet it has typically not been able to deal with the source or reality of those abilities. The problem is that the system that has been used to organize concepts about nature, mechanistic modeling, is incomplete in that it presumes a simple relationship between causes and their effects (Rosen 1991, 1999; Penrose, 1994; Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000; Kampis, 1991). This limitation is precisely one that separates observer from observed, thus making it impossible to comprehend that relationship. Rosen, for example, demonstrates that the larger domain of mathematics, which includes non-mechanical formalisms such as category theory and relational biology (Louie, 1985; Rosen, 1978), and human abilities such as inference, allow one to describe more complete causal entailments that cannot be fully expressed computationally. He applies this quite effectively to describing living organisms (Rosen, 1991, 1999) in terms of causal entailments between natural and formal components. But this involves a very crucial step in epistemology and scientific practice - the recognition that abstract formal causes are real and effective in nature. The alternative, that of constructing a theory of life based on material components alone, then seems a futile errand.

 

Still, the results of this inference may be unconvincing because we cannot test or observe abstract realities directly. We are instead examining their necessity in forming explanations, a more subjective matter. But if the same paradoxes appear everywhere, and they cannot be resolved in any field using mechanical models, than surely the general concept of nature must be modified from a mechanical one.

 

WHAT IS LIFE, REALLY?

 

Both behavior and evolution are influenced by semantic inputs (formal and final causes) occurring in the phenotype as abstract models of 'self' and environment (Kineman and Kineman, 1999). That input is best explained as a fundamentally abstract property of nature, rather than a product of physical states. This is the conclusion that must also be drawn from quantum physics regarding the role of the "observer" in determining physical states. It is also important cosmologically, and these same principles must appear in models of the universe.

 

Semantic components (sources of definition and meaning) are clearly a necessary feature of life; and as Rosen (1991, 1999) argues, they are a necessary feature of mathematics. Once excluded from one's model, semantics cannot be regained from syntax alone. Thus one cannot explain the "emergence" of abstraction itself from mechanical states. Conversely, it is quite feasible to explain the emergence of physical matter (as a special case) from a larger, more entailed system (the general case). Rosen's point was clear: physics has been describing machines, and nature is not a machine (Rosen, 1985a, 1991 1999; Mikulecky, 1999). One is thus led to explore how abstract realities can be involved in determining the realizations of nature. A model can be developed that incorporates important system entailments (causal linkages) divided into elements that can be observed (the mechanical world), and elements of direct experience (the realm of formal knowledge, or thought). Rosen expressed this concept as a "modeling relation" between "formal" systems and their realizations, which he calls "natural systems." We therefore look for such a principle of natural complementarity in the relativity of space and time.

 

MODELING SPACE-TIME PERCEPTION

 

We construct a relativistic cosmology from the assumptions of universal wholeness (represented in the equivalence of space and time), semantic closure (of basic variables), and special relativity. This is a geometrical model for the origin of perception in terms that we hope can be tested. The assumption is made that formal theory must be based on the simultaneous realities of a separated space-time "world" (the common observational view) and a more inclusive system context that is involved with actual experience (the required contextual basis for semantics and life). This is required to allow semantic elements into the model in a causally effective way. The dualistic nature of space-time construction, with these added semantics, can then be modeled as a fundamentally self-determining reality.

 

The computational model with its embedded semantics is only a first step. For example,  perception, which requires space-time definition, is itself involved in defining space-time; a causal loop that the model does not resolve. Instead it frames this problem as one of mutual causation between formal and material aspects of reality, in this case representing the formal whole (universe) and the material part (local space-time). This is also analogous to observership in quantum physics, which some have argued must be applied to the cosmos as a quantum system (Kafatos and Nadeau, 2000). A unification of views between quantum physics and cosmology might thus be formed on the basis mutual causation, which is so characteristic of life and so alien to computational models.

 

To capture as much of this complex relationship as possible in the model, we make use, in an instrumental and metaphorical manner, of the relationship between real and imaginary numbers. This is surely inadequate, but it allows us to model the relationship between the separated, material reality (real numbers) and the formal or abstract reality (imaginary numbers). It cannot, however, capture the true nature of that presumed complex relationship except by implication of a broader context of which this model is one instance.

 

Realized Space and Formal Time

 

Distance and time have, in the last century, been shown to be mutually defining and relative between different frames of reference. It has been shown in special relativity that our concept of time is not absolute or universal. The well-known effects on relativistic objects, length contraction and time dilation, demonstrate that these quantities are entirely relative. Yet they are operationally defined in terms of standard measurement units existing today in our local space (standard measuring rods and atomic clocks). There is, therefore, no way of directly determining if the standards themselves have changed or are changing in fixed ratio, because all local measures would scale accordingly (principle of equivalence and relativity). It is clear that they may scale relative to other frames of reference, but it is also possible that they may scale through history.

 

Regarding the nature of time, Rosen states that "...it does not seem appropriate to treat time directly as a quality or observable belonging directly to the external world."  Instead, time is to be thought of as a "label" requiring "a creative mental act, or model, about the external world..." (Rosen, 1985a). We see, therefore, that time is an abstraction which exists in the formal realm, or realm of thought. Hence, in the natural world there is no independent march of time; it is generated from percepts (perceptual events) of simultaneity and causality. Such percepts establish a relationship with measures of the physical world or one's own experience. Hence observational time and experiential time can be different. Furthermore, time and space are treated in relativity theory as separate but mathematically equivalent dimensions, and hence both time and space must be perceptual coordinates, applied by an "observer" (anything capable of perception) to order percepts.

 

The simple relation, (where s = distance, c = the speed of light, and t = time) describes the classical relationship between space and time that we are all familiar with in daily life. With a slight modification, however, the relationship may be interpreted in a similar way to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2; that is, as a transformation between "space-like" and "time-like" manifestations of nature.

 

In special relativity (Einstein, 1916) time must be treated as an imaginary number (or with a corresponding topological metric), and hence space-time is mathematically complex. The equivalence of space and time can then be written as: , where , and  is an imaginary variable that is required by the mathematics to give us a real (measurable) result for s. The nature of that variable is then the primary issue in equivalencing space and time dimensions. Furthermore, as a result of such equivalence, it would seem inconsistent to consider an expansion or contraction of local space without also accounting for a corresponding change in local time. We thus consider the history of space-time from the perspective of the natural equivalence of these dimensions.

 

SEMANTICALLY CLOSED MINKOWSKY SPACE

 

The specific assumptions of the model, reflecting the principles listed in the introduction, are:

1.      A mutually causal relationship exists between material and formal (abstract) properties of nature.

2.      Observation (perception) defines space and time dimensions. Space-time "worlds" are defined only in relation to perceptual events (interaction or measurement).

3.      Space and time dimensions must be distinct perceptually but equivalent generally.

4.      The speed of light is a local constant resulting from the equivalence of space and time.

5.      Space and time measures are perceptually relative and self-referential.

6.      Semantic closure[2] of space-time is a property of the formal domain.

7.      Syntactic closure of space-time (computability) is a property of the material domain.

 

Semantic closure (self definition) of space-time units is thus a central principle in our model of wholeness. In other words, perception is closed to its own cause, and thus must invent self-referential units of measure, having no other referent available. Also, as a result of assumptions 2 and 3, we can reason that perception must involve at least one space-time singularity, which we see astronomically in the Hubble law. This principle can be incorporated into the definition of model variables (time and space) by defining the units of measure in terms of the range of those measures themselves. In other words, a closed definition of a unit of time, dt, in local space could be stated as a proportion of the totality of time that one perceives from that local space, T, given that time does appear to be bounded from our perspective. A finite element of time is thus taken to be an element of our finite perception of time.[3] This produces a very interesting model of the relationship between local "reality" and a universal whole that can be seen in a complex space.[4]

 

Minkowsky was credited for noting that the Lorentz relations for time dilation and length contraction exist in an abstract space defined by the metric , and that this can be represented by the more familiar Pythagorean theorem,  in a complex space where time () is imaginary. In both cases time can be normalized to spatial units using the speed of light constant,. In complex space time then graphs as . These representations are equivalent, and both can be referred to as "Minkowsky space" (Einstein, 1916). The model can be visualized best in complex space, in the formalism of a Euclideanized complex Minkowsky space, where time is mapped to the imaginary axis. In Minkowsky space, velocity appears simply as a rotation of the time vector (with corresponding rotation of the space vector).

 

In the model presented here, we modify normal Minkowsky space to provide a common origin. Time vectors are thus localized within a larger model, which is constructed as a self-referential expansion of imaginary time () from a common origin (See Figure 1). The common origin represents our assumption of unitary wholeness in the form of a singularity. In other words the whole system is, from one view, still a singularity. This defines an abstract "natural" space. It can be shown that random orientation of vectors introduced over time, must converge to this view due to exponential expansion.

 

Figure 1 depicts universal expansion of time in an imaginary plane, where time vectors represent different observer frames of reference. Simultaneity is defined by light (the universe is one simultaneous event from the relativistic perspective of light). Thus all local perspectives (represented by the time vector radials) are dimensionally equivalent but distinguished by an imaginary phase difference, . The apparent common origin of these local perspectives, is a formal property of the model, although note that no light path, hence no local history, intersects this "origin."

 

Note that the circumference of this model (spheroid in higher dimensions), is a theoretical surface in complex space. Its analogous shape in Cartesian rectangular coordinates (local perspective) would be hyperbolic (of the form s2 - t2 = -1).  The geometrical divergence of complex (Minkowsky) space from our classical space-time coordinates is shown in Figure 2. In classical space () one reaches  at a phase angle of  (giving the misleading impression of a "light cone"). However, the speed of light limit is not reached in complex space () before q = ¥. Clearly, complex space fits much more closely with general experience, although we can see that the two converge locally, thus allowing classical mechanics to be locally valid. Local space can now be derived from the temporal diagram.

 

Consider an element of perpendicular arc-length, , between two radials (Figure 1) at the same theoretical radius, . All locations are physically equivalent (principles of equivalence and relativity) and the speed of light, , is a constant in all local space. The element, , is thus orthogonal to the radial vector , rotated through a phase difference,  (the complex multiplier introduced earlier). Since Euclidean mathematics apply in this complex modeling space (operating on complex variables), one can write:

                     (where along the light path)

           

The element, , being the product of two imaginary numbers, is therefore real and represents measurable space in the model. Also, as the phase difference, , becomes very small, the arc-length becomes indistinguishable from a Cartesian vector that is orthogonal to . This is an element of space,, in local space, which graphs as  vs. in Cartesian complex (Minkowsky) space. Thus, in the limit:

Being more explicit about the mathematical relationship between time and space by substituting in the above, we get:

           

This can be interpreted as an equivalence relation between time and space dimensions. As such, it requires that  must be imaginary, of the form , where  is a real number. Substituting, we obtain:

 

Figure 3 shows such local space-time frames of reference obtained from the universal time vectors. In each location the expansion of local time and space is denoted by and , respectively. For a given light path , which gives the coordinates  in complex space. The world line of light thus graphs as a curve that crosses at a  angle to all radials (assuming normalized coordinates), and thus plots as a spiral of the general form,  (Figure 1 and 2). Integrating over an element of the light path,

     thus:              or              (in graphical space)


The result is a model that incorporates the assumption that observer frames of reference are separate yet derived from a causally connected whole.

 


CONSISTENCY WITH SPECIAL RELATIVITY

 

Special relativity relates local space  to the presumed reality of a complex universe. Light arriving at system S originates historically in S', but is perceived in S where rectangular Cartesian coordinates (which are locally valid) may be projected onto observations. That projection is shown in Figure 4.

 

The complex phase angle,, between time vectors for system S and S' determines the projection of time and distance coordinates between systems. We thus obtain the standard Lorentz transformations by this simple application of Cartesian rectangular coordinates from S. This result (available in standard texts dealing with four-space) is:

then, dividing by ,

,

Recognizing that  (velocity of recession from the observer's frame of reference, S), we obtain:

,                                                                        [1]

the familiar Lorentz equation for time dilation. One can similarly calculate length contraction for an element of length, , between time vectors in and (assuming they become parallel as ) from:

       yielding,

,                                                                        [2]

 

the Lorentz equation for length contraction.

 

 

THE HUBBLE RELATION

 

The model can be used to predict a theoretical "Hubble" relation between apparent (relativistic) recession velocity and distance to a remote object by constructing an historical view of the observable universe. We thus write where  is the space coordinate of a remote object and  is the time coordinate looking historically, so that:

and integrating from the present to the past,

, 

where T is the apparent "age" of the universe from a given local perspective. Then,

   , or                                                   [3]

Next substitute (equating cosmological distance with light travel through local space), and , where S is the apparent size of the universe from our reference point in system . If we denote the distance from  to a remote object in  by , then  , and:

                                                         [4]

Note from Figure 2 that:

,   and, for ,

  ,  thus

                                                             [5]

Combining (4) and (5), we obtain:

Text Box:

[6]

 

 

 

Where:

 recession velocity (in observer's frame of reference)

   speed of light

  distance to celestial object (through local space)

  apparent size of the universe (in observer's frame of reference)

 

This relation, shown in Figure 5, predicts that the Hubble expansion is not linear and must be modified according to Equation (6). It predicts a slight but noticeable deviation from linear throughout the range, and an obvious deviation beyond .7S. It suggests that a linear fit to data at distances < .7S will under-predict the size and age of the universe. Linear estimates should therefore be extended by a factor of 1.18. Furthermore, we should see a reduction in the Hubble "constant" to zero at great distances. The universe should thus appear to have been expanding more slowly for very distant objects than predicted by a linear Hubble relation. This result is due to self-referential geometry of an "empty" space-time.[5] While recent data are suggestive of the general shape of this curve, more careful observations are required.

THE STEADY-BANG UNIVERSE

 

Space-time, in this model, is interpreted as a perceptual phenomenon involving mutual causality between an abstract temporal realm and a tangible spatial one. Due to special relativity and the Hubble law, time dilation must be applied in any historical view of the universe. But just as the clock of a traveler in a relativistic space ship operates normally for the traveler, so must local time have seemed normal to someone in history. The "Big Bang" then can be a singularity in an observational frame of reference only. Our historical view of the universe is logarithmically collapsed toward a theoretical point as we gaze farther into the past.. However, local history as experienced is theoretically unbounded, since it is defined by a constant speed of light. The singularity associated with the big bang is one of space-time itself relative to an external observer, which must then leave internal measures self-relative. Hence, while local variations of energy and matter are possible, the big bang as a universal phenomenon could not have been experienced.

 

To be explicit about this point, the traditional diagram of a closed space-time in Figure 6 shows space expanding and contracting between singularities. But such phenomena only have meaning in a larger system view where time and space are defined. It therefore cannot be a "largest system" model. It can apply only to specific localized phenomena relative to another observational frame of reference (which then, paradoxically, must be included as part of the universe). Hence, we can see a universal singularity, but it could not be perceived as such by a participant, even if we could run the universe backward to the time of the big bang (or ahead to a presumed crunch).

 

The temptation to interpret the observational perspective as an illusion of relativistic time, however, cannot be entirely condoned either. We must understand that the observational "reality" of an historical singularity is actually causal in our frame of reference, just as similar relativistic phenomena producible in a laboratory have causal effects in experiments. The fact that it is historical does not change its causality in our frame of reference. Certainly information, in the form of radiation, from that historical view does physically arrive in our present. It provides evidence of an early universe that was small, dense, and hot from our perspective, and it shows us an apparent point of origin. Whether or not this can correspond with a realizable experience, it must be considered "real" in our space-time frame of reference.

 

Still, we have the curious phenomena that information seems to exist about something that, in at least some sense, wasn't there. Kafatos and Nadeau (2000) propose the view that the big bang must ultimately be seen as a quantum singularity. Hence, complementarity between different "realities" would be inescapable, and it would be possible that experiential history and observational history might be different. This is a very important outcome when we apply the model to other instances of space-time as a general model of perception. We must assume that BOTH realities are true, in the nature of a complementarity.

 

DIFFERENT SCALES OF REALITY

 

One can replace the concept of velocity altogether with the idea of scale. From our frame of reference, historical convergence appears in all spatial dimensions (we modeled only one for simplicity), and time appears correspondingly expanded. We thus see an observational history that scales space and time oppositely with each other (shorter distance, longer time), with corresponding changes in mass, energy, and gravity. These changes imply the apparent physics of an "early" cosmos. However, if we wish to ask what happened in local space historically, there is a different picture. Locally, the scale of space and time are standardized by the invariant nature of light. We thus recover the concept of a consistent relative space in experiential history. An element of experiential time is invariant with respect to the dimensions of local space (since they are mutually defining). For light traveling through (and defining) local space-times, we can think of a universal clock associated with the phase angle, f. This generates experiential time and local space, which is proportional to the logarithm of observational time (Equation [3]). In that case the range of experiential time, that is, the time of internal history, becomes unbounded, since.


 


It may be useful to think of this as a logarithmic scaling of local space and time standards relative to our observed history. A uniform change in space and time measures, that does not alter the measured speed of light, is locally undetectable, but can account for the difference between experiential and observational time, where . This result is similar to the fundamental space-time construction called "Kinematic Relativity,"[6] which also defines such a relationship between observational time ("t -time") and experiential time ("-time") (Canuto and Elmegreen, 1988).

 

It is also instructive to consider the convergence points of light curves in the model. These occur at intervals of , thus repeating every .957R (). Astronomical convergence points predicted by this geometry are shown in Figure 7, These, if they are visible, should look to an astronomer like isotropic homogeneities. The first occurs at a redshift of .996, and would correspond to an age (relative to a 15by origin) of 648 million years.

 

PERCEPTION AND THE QUANTUM WORLD

 

Perhaps even more significant is the application of this complex geometry to multiple instances of space-time in other fields. The theoretical existence of overlapping but related observer frames outside our observational frames is implied. Figure 8 may represent many views of the cosmos, or a generic picture of the unrestricted yet causally related states of any perceptual space-time. This suggests that space-time geometry may be responsible for other phenomena we observe on smaller scales.

 

To demonstrate how this might work generically, consider a simple system composed of a single interaction between two entities. Imagining their time vectors to be unspecified prior to interaction, the instance of interaction then localizes both entities as space-time events and establishes a mutual frame of reference. This implies a private, system-dependent, space-time. Now add a third interaction (percept) somewhere along one of the existing timelines. This too is a perceptual event that implies space-time definition. Unless conforming accidentally to the already established scale, this will imply a local velocity, which establishes an additional relative scale with respect to all of the others. Because of the exponential expansion of observed time with respect to experiential time, the timelines of multiple events will re-scale over time toward a common origin. The system thus self-organizes into a "universe" with an apparent historical origin of time vectors, not unlike our cosmos.

 

As we have seen, a kind of internal clock is started and information is generated about the internal state-space. That information travels along light-like "information" curves that are causally related to each location. In experiential time, these information paths converge at regular intervals as in our cosmological model. In effect, information about one's own time-line from the past arrives at the present, and each system begins "ticking" according to an internal clock.

 

Discussion

 

The space-time model described here for the cosmos, by providing a self-referential definition for space-time coordinates, suggests a fundamental geometry for space-time, which seems to be related to perception in mutual causation. The basic geometry described is also self-organizing when there are multiple interactions. As such, it may suggest principles from which properties of self-reference and self-organization appear in natural systems. In particular, it may represent an important aspect of both the physical and psychological "worlds" attributed to principles of complementarity and indeterminism.

 

The process of perception involves a complex reality that can presently be understood as a relationship between an abstract domain and a material domain, both of which must be considered theoretically real. There is no precise concept for their combined domain, except for generalities like "natural system" and "complexity."

 

The interaction between these domains defines and is defined by perception, which involves a relationship between material states and "acts of abstraction" which Rosen (1985a) claimed are fundamental to living "anticipatory" systems. Could an "act of abstraction" be understood as an independent space-time reality? It appears, indeed, that such acts are involved in the basic nature of the universe. We can understand these in terms of percepts that define local space-time and impute a larger system context to nature. Correspondingly the larger context imputes the necessary semantics to local definitions.

 

If such relations are basic to nature, then it becomes understandable that they would be employed and perhaps enhanced during the evolution of organisms. We no longer need to explain how life "emerged" from matter because it didn't. Instead, it seems that matter has emerged from life. This cannot be demonstrated more fundamentally than through the necessity of these relationships in quantum physics and cosmology.

 

Our cosmological model, which began with the assumption of a singularity, nevertheless seems to predict two realities. It clearly predicts two time scales for these realities, one experiential and one observational. That results in an ontological paradox which is resolved only by accepting that a Rosen modeling relation is fundamental to nature. In our model this is formalized as a relationship between real and imaginary number domains, representing physical and abstract realities. This requires a 5th dimension, which is space-time scale.

 

One must assume that the properties of perception and abstraction, which we have attributed as fundamental aspects of reality in entailed natural systems, may be retained in subsequently evolving organisms in specific ways. It may thus be reasonable to suppose that 1st person experience is fundamentally associated with perception. As such, perception may be "entangled" with an external world (physical), or independent (mental), as it is solely a property of a system of percepts. Observation then involves co-definition of space-time coordinates. If there can be physically independent percepts, they would be theoretically free to establish new universes of possibilities. Our psychological abilities, retained from the larger natural system, might be explained by an evolved ability (employing suitable structures) to create independent space-time definitions (universes) in our mind. In this view, the structures associated with psyche are not constructive in the material sense, but rather isolating in a way that allows the entirely natural process of space-time definition to proceed un-entangled with the material world.

Such a basis for "imagination" may then be responsible for all the evolved forms of abstract reasoning and consciousness attained by living organisms.

 

One of the important things suggested here is that any space-time system contains, and is defined by, internal information. In a sense, the model suggests an information generator. Can the dual "clocks," information exchange (light path), and exponential scaling properties predicted by this model be interpreted as an internal dialog with one's self, and perhaps then a model for defining a self?  Is it a form of self-observation, perhaps similar to Roger Penrose's theory of "self-collapse" of a quantum wave function (Penrose, 1994)? Is this a means for each entity to be informed of its space-time relationship with a system, and thus a basis for explaining classical matter? If so, can the internal processes described explain the time of persistence of isolated states observed in quantum experiments? Similarly, can we derive a principle for minimum dimension that will quantize relativity? Does relativity imply quantum behavior?

 

Reasoning in the opposite way, is consciousness, which must involve a relationship between abstraction and physical states, based in these same fundamental properties of perception? If so, and if the basic features of the model are correct, then consciousness is not something that is constructed (as most often assumed), but rather something that is allowed by physical (space-time) isolation. We would indeed look for special structures associated with consciousness, but not constituting it. This would suggest approaches like that of Hameroff and Penrose (1996) to develop a theory of the structures associated with consciousness based on quantum isolation.

 

Quantum non-locality may also be understood in terms of this complex space-time model. Initial registration between a measuring apparatus (observer) and an entangled system (say two particles after collision) can theoretically take any random orientation, however once a relative frame of reference is established with the system, there is no choice in how to observe complementary states. Can the model help us understand entanglement?

 

This view does not accord space-time any reality that is independent of the objects and information within it, and thus its persistence and character is very much a systems phenomena. How, then, is classical matter maintained (why is it macroscopically stable)? The model suggests that the answer should lie in the maintenance of system interactions, or self-observation, which can consequently maintain space-time reference. Any interaction will establish a measuring system and thus a determined state for two interacting worlds. Unless that entanglement is destroyed, all events (timelines) become ordered into a cosmos like our own as the result of exponential scaling. The completeness of that definition and entanglements in structural terms, and conditions of participation or exception from it, would then underlie the observation of discrete state possibilities and limitations on their attainment. One might imagine how the possibilities for space-time alignment (energy states) may be restricted by anisotropy in the space-time model. This would be analogous to local concentrations of matter in the universe, which would distort the shape of our graphical model (due to relativistic effects), perhaps establishing certain preferred orientations.

 

We see that it is the unidirectional time vector that defines local space. This is equivalent to saying that our physical model of a common, uniform space depends on adopting a mathematical limitation in the time dimension - one that ensures temporal causality, or unidirectional time. In other words, a space-time perspective limits time to something tangible and orderly in relation to other events, which is the basis for mechanistic models. In this way, we think of local space as a relationship between real numbers of classical space and time; whereas we know that the truer picture is described by a complex space that does not have such simple properties. The mechanistic restriction also looses its usefulness at the quantum level where events are isolated by experiment from space-time interaction and the model of time must recover some of its abstract, relative properties.

 

The idea of "many worlds" has been proposed before, for example in "Everett Worlds" in which each quantum interaction produces an alternative universe leading to the theoretical existence of every possible future. However the view we present is very different in that it leads to alternative worlds that are system-defined. Attaining or retaining independence from that system requires isolation from entanglement. Other than that, there are a multitude of relativistic space-time perspectives within any such system, but these are participants in one reality. Our model is also very different from the "many minds" proposal in that it does not accord a fully independent reality to every observer, but rather a relativistic one within an entailed system, and an independent one only under specific conditions of isolation.

 

We could also, of course, speculate on the broader humanistic and religious aspects of the view presented. It provides many openings for traditional and non-traditional spiritual thought, especially Eastern metaphysics. It suggests the possibility of abstract universes, eternal time, and light singularities in a domain that is removed from the material world of observation. In an abstract realm, where many worlds are possible, many beliefs are also possible. Since the model is based on a causal relationship between these domains, beliefs themselves are significant. Can we not see the physical results of specific beliefs in the world today? Such thoughts were, in the recent past, dismissed from science using the assertion that all thoughts come directly from the world, and therefore can be ignored in its causal explanation. The view here says they do not, although there is clearly the means for mutual influence. While the potential for spiritual interpretation may be bothersome to some, the habit of scientific materialism has been bothersome for others. In the quest for truth one should not feel impoverished if it is found that different paths can begin with the same concept of reality.

 

 

Conclusions

 

It seems better (more parsimonious, consistent, universal, necessary, formal, and fruitful)[7], from the arguments presented here, to explain the emergence of mechanical systems from a living universe than to explain the emergence of living systems from a dead one. This leads us to reject the traditional view that unique properties defining life "emerged" and subsequently evolved from material components alone. Instead it seems that life and nature are fundamentally self-determining and thus not prescribed. This fundamental principle may be shared in all space-time-isolated systems (including organisms and quantum matter).

 

The origin of the universe, quantum particles, the internal world of organisms, and experience itself are likely related to the nature of perception and space-time. Perception creates the space-time definitions within which objects and events can then be identified and ordered. Without this definition, all possible orderings exist, and hence there is no causality or distinction, only the properties of non-locality. We see then a picture of reality where non-locality is the general condition and space-time definition the more specific case, with many alternative constructions.

 

There can ultimately be no 'largest model' of a natural system. This is true, if for no other reason, because no description can include itself, all others, or its own origins. This leads to a concept of complexity that involves fundamental unknowns and mutualisms that generally manifest as multiple exclusive aspects of nature (complementarities). This should be an explicit aspect of a natural system model.

 

Complex space-time geometry can be interpreted as preserving abstract properties of universal wholeness within separated space-time "worlds." It thus allows for semantic input to those worlds from a larger context of all such worlds. Hence universal semantics provide local meaning to space and time constructs.

 

Development and evolution of natural systems must follow "experiential" history and thus develop through experiential time. One must conclude, on the basis of the cosmological application of this model, that celestial objects may exist that are older than the apparent age of the big bang. Big bang physics is then the physics of relativistic objects that otherwise have a private existence.

 

The relationship between an abstract time-like domain and realized space-like worlds present in cosmology and quantum physics is a natural complex modeling relation that itself models as a complementarity. Abstraction abilities are associated with the "imaginary" time-like domain that may spawn any number of space-time models. This ability may thus represent a psychological arena within which capabilities can exist to imagine many worlds, think, and dream.

 

The origin of perception, or the perceiver, remains an unanswered and perhaps unanswerable question. Like the epistemological limit in explaining the origin of quantum particles or the origin of the universe, not much can be said prior to a mutual causation. It is a mutual causation.

 

The results of common observation are associated with a "space-like" world and the results of abstraction with a "time-like" world, even though these acts themselves involve both aspects. Space thus appears tangible to us and time does not. With some introspection, we may come to appreciate that abstraction is time-like.

 

The astute reader will notice that our results are mostly composed of questions. We hope that in some way these thoughts will stimulate the very needed additional work along these pathways, which we believe will be highly fruitful.

 

References

 

Canuto, VM, Elmegreen, BG. (eds.). (1988). Handbook of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Geophysics Volume II: Galaxies and Cosmology. New York: Gordon and Breach.

Einstein, A. (1916). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. Authorized translation by R. W. Lawson. Reprinted in 1961 by the Estate of Albert Einstein. New York: Crown Publishers.

Hameroff, S. and Penrose, R. (1996). "Conscious Events as Orchestrated Space-Time Selections." J. Consciousness Studies (2)1:36-53)

Kafatos, M., Nadeau, R. (2000). The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Kampis, G. (1991). Self-Modifying Systems in Biology and Cognitive Science: A New Framework for Dynamics, Information and Complexity. New York: Pergamon Press.

Kineman JJ. (1997). "Towards a special and general theory of autevolution." Publication on the web (http://www.bayside.net/NPO/BMI/autevol.htm). Boulder: Bear Mountain Institute.

Kineman, JJ., Kineman, JR. (1999). "Non-mechanical ontology in the explanation of organism and evolution." Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of  the International Society for the Systems Sciences. Asilomar: International Society for the Systems Sciences.

Louie, AH. (1985) "Categorical System Theory." in Theoretical Biology and Complexity: Three essays on the Natural Philosophy of Complex Systems, (Rosen R, ed.)  Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.

Mikulecky DC. (1999) "Robert Rosen: The well posed question and its answer -- Why are organisms different from machines?" Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. Asilomar: International Society for the Systems Sciences..

Penrose R. (1994). Shadows of the Mind: A search for the missing science of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rosen, R. (1978). Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems. New York: North-Holland.

Rosen R. (1985a). Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical and Methodological Foundations. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Rosen R. (1985b). "Organisms as causal systems which are not mechanisms: An essay into the nature of complexity," in Theoretical Biology and Complexity: Three essays on the Natural Philosophy of Complex Systems, (Rosen R, ed.) Orlando: Academic Press, Inc.

Rosen R. (1991). Life Itself. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rosen, R. (1999). Essays on Life Itself. New York: Columbia University Press.