MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376645249 · doi:10.3390/e25050803

Process and Time

2023· article· en· W4376645249 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEntropy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionSpacetimeArrow of timeProcess (computing)EpistemologyComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)Theoretical physicsMaterialismPerceptionArtificial intelligencePhysicsQuantumPhilosophyQuantum mechanicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In regards to the nature of time, it has become commonplace to hear physicists state that time does not exist and that the perception of time passing and of events occurring in time is an illusion. In this paper, I argue that physics is actually agnostic on the question of the nature of time. The standard arguments against its existence all suffer from implicit biases and hidden assumptions, rendering many of them circular in nature. An alternative viewpoint to that of Newtonian materialism is the process view of Whitehead. I will show that the process perspective supports the reality of becoming, of happening, and of change. At the fundamental level, time is an expression of the action of process generating the elements of reality. Metrical space-time is an emergent aspect of relations between process-generated entities. Such a view is compatible with existing physics. The situation of time in physics is reminiscent of that of the continuum hypothesis in mathematical logic. It may be an independent assumption, not provable within physics proper (though it may someday be amenable to experimental exploration).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it