h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Good day to you.

I am the baryonic being whose keyboard typed out the current Edited Entry on the nature of time (A3577241). So I thought it was appropriate that I contacted you.

I've read your piece about the nature of time, finding it very thought-provoking. There are a number of points there that would indeed have gone very well in my own Entry - for example, the fact that when we look out into space, we are necessarily and exclusively looking back into the past, rather than seeing a snapshot of our surroundings at any given 'time' (which is how we erroneously interpret things).

Unfortunately, despite having been on h2g2 for a few years, I don't know what the best procedure for updating the Entry would be. The relevant information is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/UpdateForum , but I still cannot determine the best course of action.

The foundation of your argument is on defining a point in time as "identically equivalent to, and completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe". However, I cannot agree with this without clarification, for several reasons.

The relativity of simultaneity, for example, tells us that different observers will have a different account of the universe. If, for example, two people on a train sit at opposite ends of a table, equidistant from a candle of some nature, and raise their hand upon first seeing the light from the light source, then people on the train will observe the hands going up at the same time (assuming equal reaction times), because of the constancy of the speed of light in the medium of air, and the fact that it's travelling the same distance. But stationary observers outside the train will observe one person raising their hand before the other - because as the light moves towards him, the train will also get closer to the light, because it too is moving. So we get two observers giving two equally valid, but apparently contradictory accounts of what seems like the same event.

What this tells us is that there simply is no single 'configuration of the universe'. The configuration of the universe depends upon the observer, and no single observer is correct.

From what I understand, you're looking at the universe as a constantly changing set of things - a continual evolution. Even though it is impossible, we can imagine freezing this evolution and then examining the configuration of the universe, and then labelling this configuration a 'moment of time'. Unfortunately, as special relativity tells us, there is no objective moment of time by this definition.

Of course, I could conceivably have got all this thoroughly round my neck and strangled myself with it - that is to say, I might have got confused. Tell me if I'm talking nonsense.

Now, another reason why the idea of a 'configuration of the universe' is somewhat meaningless comes from the record-holding incarnation of my favourite subject: quantum mechanics. I'm not sure how much of it you know (it might well be more than I know!) but as I understand it, the universe is like one massive particle, in that it does not have any definite state of existence. Instead, particles (and the universe) have a 'quantum state', which is described, or is actually defined, by a wavefunction. The wavefunction maps out the probability that, upon observation, the entity will be observed at the given position or in the given state.

At the moment, several points about the quantum universe are entirely unclear:
(i) How and why does the act of observation cause us to observe a definite state of the universe?
(ii) Do the other states of the universe actually exist (for example, as other universes)?
(iii) What determines which state of the universe is actually the one we observe (for example if multiple states are equally probable)?

This makes the question of the 'configuration of the universe' seriously fuzzy.

"Well," you might be thinking, "Do I have a better idea about the nature of time?"

As it stands, I am still struggling to unify disparate concepts into a complete picture of the universe, which is why I welcome open-minded (even radical) re-interpretations of reality. Still, many of my current opinions about time's nature (and how I interpret the formulations of scientists on the topic), I have discussed in great detail with another h2g2 member here: F131096?thread=501361&skip=60&show=20#p37458462

(We've since moved on to another topic, so if you do read any of it, I suggest you reply in this thread here).

My favourite books about time are Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" and Clifford Pickover's "Time: A Traveler's Guide" (the former being a bit easier to understand and more comprehensive). Have you read either?

(As for the assertion in the subject that time does not exist, that was just to get your attention)

And good day to you. I'm pleased to make your electonic acquaintence. As I've written elsewhere in an h2g2 entry, I was favorably impressed by the edited entry on the nature of time which had sprung from your keyboard. I've just now quickly scanned your personal space and have taken the liberty of adding you to my list of h2g2 friends. Hope you don't mind.

First off, thanks for taking the time and trouble to read my essay. Glad you found it at least thought provoking and not total gibberish. I'll try to address below some of the points you raised.

You wrote: "The foundation of your argument is on defining a point in time as "identically equivalent to, and completely defined by, and only by, a particular configuration of the universe". However, I cannot agree with this without clarification, for several reasons.

The relativity of simultaneity, for example, tells us that different observers will have a different account of the universe. .... What this tells us is that there simply is no single 'configuration of the universe'. The configuration of the universe depends upon the observer, and no single observer is correct."

(I cut out a few words here for brevity).

I'd ask you to please go back and re-read my essay carefully ... especially the analogy of the blind persons examining and reporting on the configuration of the elephant. They will each have a very different idea of what an elephant is, but that does not mean that the elephant does not exist. I've been very careful to emphasize that none of us can ever KNOW the configuration of the universe, but this does not in any way mean that a configuration does not exist! The configuration of the universe does not depend on the observer any more than the configuration of the elephant depends on the observer!

You wrote: "From what I understand, you're looking at the universe as a constantly changing set of things - a continual evolution. Even though it is impossible, we can imagine freezing this evolution and then examining the configuration of the universe, and then labelling this configuration a 'moment of time'." Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, but at the same time I'm of course acknowledging that this could never be done in practice, nor is there any need to do so to make use of the underlying concept.

You wrote: "Now, another reason why the idea of a 'configuration of the universe' is somewhat meaningless comes from the record-holding incarnation of my favourite subject: quantum mechanics. ...
This makes the question of the 'configuration of the universe' seriously fuzzy." (Again, I've abbreviated.)

It is absolutely crucial to realize that humans' concept of time dates back to antiquity ... far, far predating the advent of quantum mechanics, relativity, or physics of any sort. Our concept of time is extremely primitive! It grew up willy nilly over millennia. And yet this incredibly primitive concept (or in reality, lack of any coherent concept) of time has been the basis for all of modern physics, including relativity and quantum mechanics! I believe that modern physics needs to be reinterpreted in light of a more rational fundamental concept of time, which is what I purport of offer.

I recognized your train and table scenario from Greene's "The Elegant Universe." Yes, I've read "The Fabric of the Cosmos." Have not read Pickover. Books I'd recommend include "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch; The End of Time" by Julian Barbour; and "the Life of the Cosmos" by Lee Smolin.

I become extremely frustrated when some of our best physicists use circular reasoning to define time in what they euphemistically refer to as an "operational definition." What is time? Time is that which is measured by clocks. Okay then what is a clock? Oh, a clock is that which measures time! This is essentially the definition Greene uses in "The Elegant Universe." Yes he camouflages the obfuscation in some baloney jargon about clocks working on the principle of "regular cycles of motion," which of course you couldn't measure unless you already had a clock! Scientists and philosophers need to sit down with a clean sheet of paper and rethink time from the ground up, and I think my concept would be a useful place to begin.

If you're interested, I've written a couple of longer monographs which set out my ideas in considerably greater detail. You'll find a reference to them if you google my name, J. C. N. Smith.

Incidentally, my concept of time absolutely rules out the possibility of time travel of the sort depicted in science fiction. My monographs spell out the reasons for that. But if you simply think about my definition, you'll be able to figure it out for yourself.

Hope you find this helpful.

By the way, I don't know whether you're reading my essay as it appears in an h2g2 entry or at the website, but I believe the website is quite a bit easier on the eyes. Both versions should be identical other than esthetically.

The website of course being at http://smithjcn.googlepages.com/time

Again by way of clarification, I believe that modern physics rests on a dubious foundation in that it has never properly addressed the fundamental nature of time. Greene's circular definition of time, which is typical of physicists' thinking on the topic, illustrates my point. Therefore, while modern physics certainly can boast some remarkable achievements, I believe that progress in physics is being unnecessarily held back because of its failure properly to address the issue of time. As I suggest in my essay, I believe the lack of a clear understanding of time is making it necessary for physicists to do things the hard way rather than doing them in a perhaps simpler, more elegant way. My observation that the equivalence of mass and energy falls out directly from my definition of time merely hints at this notion.

FYI, in case it might have escaped your attention, my time essay is receiving its 15 minutes of fame as an entry in today's (7 Sep '06) h2g2 Post under the CAC Continuum heading. Brian Greene, eat your heart out!

"which had sprung from your keyboard"

I like to joke that I type so quickly that the words appear on the screen *before* I tap on the keys, and that's how I know what to type! (Nice closed timelike curve, there).


Unfortunately I don't have time, at present, to re-read your article, but I have thought about it carefully, and I think I might be coming to some understanding in relation to the elephant analogy (which is one that I myself use a lot for other purposes!)

You see, I currently think of the universe as having at least 5 macro-sized 'identical' dimensions. Just like Auckland still exists when you're in Paris, the past and future still exist even when you're in 10:35PM September 9th 2006. That's my viewpoint. And I realise that what relativity is saying is that space and time are the same. The configuration of the universe at a particular point in *time* is a nonsense; but the configuration of *space-time* is indeed fixed.

So when Feynman says "they should be measured in the same units", I agree with him, in the sense that time is a dimension like the others (it is what we'd normally regard as 'spatial', it's just that we happen to perceive only a small part of this dimension 'at a time' - that is, our consciousness seems to move along/through certain cross-sections of space-time).

This kind of tallies with what you're saying, I think. I'll have to go away and ruminate upon it.


"this incredibly primitive concept (or in reality, lack of any coherent concept) of time has been the basis for all of modern physics, including relativity and quantum mechanics"

In fact, neither relativity nor quantum mechanics incorporate any significance of 'past', 'present' and 'future' (which is our primitive concept of time); and the theories are both time-symmetric. So I'm not sure how big a problem it is.


"You'll find a reference to them if you google my name, J. C. N. Smith."

Sorry, I can't find any... Could you give a link?

Could I also ask for your mathematical formulation of how the equivalence of energy and mass condense out of your theory?


Thanks for the book recommendations, also.

By the way, you might also be interested in this Entry: A3006307.

"Unfortunately I don't have time, at present, to re-read your article, but I have thought about it carefully"

My first inclination is to reply that unfortunately I don't have time, at present, for this conversation, but I'll think about it carefully.

Actually, I have now re-read most of the article, but my understanding has not changed from what I last wrote.

There's one thing I certainly agree with, though: that it is 'time' to rethink our [mis]conceptions of the universe (including the nature of time).

Then it's good to know that we agree on at least one thing! If you'll permit me, I'd like to reproduce below for your consideration a few relevant thoughts that I'd posted elsewhere in a different conversation.

David Deutsch (author of 'The Fabric of Reality'), who by the way is a big fan of Sir Karl Popper, appears to believe that "proving" things is less crucial than coming up with really good "explanations" for things. If you read his book, he makes the point rather well and convincingly I think. The one who comes up with the best explanation for things is the winner, for the time being at least ... Einstein vs. Newton, for example.

It is exactly in keeping with this line of reasoning that I believe my ideas on time have a great deal of merit; they simply offer a better explanation of time than do other currently existing explanations. If you will indulge me for a moment I'd like to elaborate. The currently accepted "best way of thinking" about time is totally and utterly bankrupt! One of our most well known and highly respected modern physicists, Brian Greene, author of 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' and 'The Elegant Universe,' has the following to say about time: "It is difficult to give an abstract definition of time--attempts to do so often wind up invoking the word 'time' itself or go through linguistic contortions to avoid doing so."

All well and good so far (though of course I disagree about it being difficult to give an abstract definition of time; I do it in my essay). Having said this, however, Greene (along with most of his colleagues) then goes on to commit virtual logical suicide, in my opinion. He gives what he euphemistically refers to as an "operational definition" of time, to wit: "time is that which is measured by clocks." Alright, you may say, very well, then what is a clock? Oh, well, a clock, of course, is that which measures time! I do not exagerate! Greene goes on in a feeble attempt to obfuscate and camouflage this circular reasoning by mumbling some mumbo jumbo BS about clocks being mechanisms based on "perfectly regular cycles of motion," which, of course, one would have no way of measuring unless one already had a bloody freaking clock!!! This is perhaps the most appalling bit of bankrupt thinking I can imagine coming from any reasonably intelligent human being, much less a well respected physicist. This, mind you, is precisely the thinking about the nature of time which serves as a key underpinning for all of modern physics!! I'm not joking here! Is it any wonder then that modern physics is such a mess?? I think not!

It's my contention that physicists and philosophers all should sit down with a clean piece of paper and rethink the entire concept of time from the ground up. And I further maintain that my concept of time, as outlined in my essay and monographs, would be an exceptionally fine place to begin this process of rethinking.

And please don't get me wrong. I certainly have nothing against Mr. Greene personally. Aside from the unfortunate business about his operational definition of time he clearly is an extremely intelligent person and an excellent writer and thinker. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading his books. As you might have been able to intuit from my remarks, however, I do take offense at his thinking (or perhaps his lack of clear thinking) with regard to the nature of time. I have written to Mr. Greene about this, but he has thus far not deigned to honor my correspondence with a reply. I would be able to excuse his rudeness in this regard more easily if his own thinking on the topic were not so totally bankrupt. It's not as though he couldn't use a bit of help. I can't help wondering whether some of these chaps might be of the opinion that if they hadn't already thought of an idea themselves it's probably not worth thinking about. Not that I'm the least bit bitter or frustrated, mind you.

I'm simply appalled that a major branch of science --physics--apparently is satisfied simply to more or less ignore the fact that it rests on a pathetically wobbly foundation with regard to understanding the nature of time, which of course is my personal hobby horse. Time plays such a central role in physics that I'm perpetually astounded when I hear reputable physicists apparently satisfied to go around spouting blatantly pathetic circular definitions of time, hoping, I can only guess, simply to paper over this horrendous deficiency in the underpinnings of their science. Meanwhile they go ahead busily attempting to build the ediface of physics on a foundation solidly afloat in a sea of quicksand. And then they wonder why there is an irreconcilable disconnect between relativity and quantum mechanics, just to cite one notable example of how modern physics is in a pitiful mess. And I'm incredibly frustrated on a personal level, because I truly believe that my concept of time is at least a good first step toward setting the whole thing back on a sound footing, but I haven't managed yet to get a hearing from anyone with the clout to make matters better.

I will momentarily stand down from my soap box. I feel much better now. Thank you for being an attentive audience.

One additional thought (also partially borrowed from another conversation): had you been focusing a substantial amount of your attention on this topic for the past 40 or more years, as I have, I suspect your thinking might differ somewhat from that which you currently hold. This is a topic that needs to seep into one's bones, if you'll excuse the expression, gradually over time I suspect.

Unlike some with whom I've discussed this, I maintain that time is far from being beyond human comprehension. One of the things that makes time difficult to understand, however, is the fact that our brains have been filled with misinformation about the nature of time from the moment we're born; it takes a while to undo that faulty conditioning and to replace that faulty understanding with what I am convinced ultimately will prove to be a better explanation. Who before Copernicus would have believed that the sun does not circle the earth? The evidence is right there in front of your eyes every day; all you need to do is watch the sky. The sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west. Every single day. How can you argue with that? Case closed.

Arriving at a clearer understanding of time requires a similar mental shifting of gears, which is something not easily or quickly done, unfortunately. As a starting point one really needs to fully comprehend and "internalize" the concept of a particular time being equivalent to a particular configuration of the universe. Everything else flows logically from that one key insight.

The impossibility of time travel, for example: time travel of the sort proposed in science fiction involves traveling from one particular time to another. In other words from one particular configuration of the universe to some other particular configuration of the universe. But configurations of the universe are very real and substantial things involving very real, measureable relationships among a vast array of real, massive physical objects such as planets and galaxies; one does not simply go about rearranging the universe into some different arbitrary configuration to suit one's whim! Not even with the benefit of the fabled and much discussed "worm holes" in the space time fabric. Those configurations of the universe that defined particular times that we call the "past" no longer exist. Anywhere. Period. Much of the material of which those configurations was composed still exists, but it has become rearranged ... its configuration has evolved to become the configuration that we observe around us now and which we call the present.

You wrote: "Actually, I have now re-read most of the article" Come, come now! Why only just "most" of the article? Which part did you manage not to re-read? Mygod, man, you make it sound like this little essay of mine is bloody 'War and Peace'! When the essay is printed out on paper in a large font using wide margins the entire essay is less than seven pages long! I must say that your seeming inability to find the time carefully to read a six and a half page distillation of what has taken me roughly 40 years to compose is more than a tiny bit insulting, from my perspective. I simply can't stop myself from throwing that piece of information into the kettle for your consideration. Perhaps no one has ever pointed out to you that if you intend to have a constructive dialogue with a person, it's generally not helpful to begin the process by insulting the person with whom you wish to have the dialogue.

I merely meant that I did not bother to read the first few paragraphs again because they are the "preamble". I understand the background to the problem already, so I didn't re-read it. Things like "Search your memory until you come across a vivid recollection of some particular time in the past that has a special significance for you" are directions for someone new to the topic, which I am not. All I did was to use the skill of filtering information, so that it was most relevant to me personally.

So, relax. I'm not insulting you.


Presumably, then, the reason that you didn't respond directly to post 8 of mine, and instead copied over things from other conversations you've had, was because you didn't currently have 'time', a position with which I am perfectly sympathetic, not to mention empathetic.

If you do not mind my continuing to attempt understanding the nature of time, I would like to ask the following questions:

- How exactly does relativity fit into your viewpoint? For example, when the clock of a stationary observer measures a lesser elapsed time than a moving observer as a result of relative motion, how do you interpret that?

- Are you imagining the universe (with reference to its 'configuration') as a three-dimensional space, or four-dimensional, or more?

- What is the precise mathematical formulation of how the equivalence of energy and mass derives from that of space and time?

- You make many allusions to defects in modern physics (including relativity and quantum mechancis) as a result of an inadequate definition of time. However, as I have said, neither of these theories are time-dependent - that is, they are time-symmetric, and do not include descriptions of past, present or future. So the question is: what exactly are the problems with these theories, and how does your picture of time really help to resolve them? And how would it help the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics? Have you considered how it fits into M-theory (the new version of superstring theory)?

- How does this tally with the idea, which most physicists currently hold, that space and time are discrete and that their smallest units are the Planck units?

- Can you possibly provide a page reference for the assertions of Brian Greene that you have mentioned and with which you take issue?


Of course, it goes without saying, that if you have already answered these questions in other essays or conversations, that you can merely provide a link to them.

If you do not mind my continuing to attempt understanding the nature of time, I would like to ask the following questions:

I will address your questions as best I'm able. In so doing, however, I would like to take the liberty of re-ordering your questions.

- You make many allusions to defects in modern physics (including relativity and quantum mechancis) as a result of an inadequate definition of time. However, as I have said, neither of these theories are time-dependent - that is, they are time-symmetric, and do not include descriptions of past, present or future. So the question is: what exactly are the problems with these theories, and how does your picture of time really help to resolve them? And how would it help the incompatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics? Have you considered how it fits into M-theory (the new version of superstring theory)?

--That modern physics has serious problems is, I believe, totally inarguable. Leading practitioners of the science of physics cannot even agree on how many bloody universes there are. Does this sound like a science that has its act fully together?

I must vehemently disagree with your assertion that neither relativity nor quantum mechanics is time-dependent. The empirical observation that the speed of light is invarient forms the original underlying germ of relativity; Einstein's original preference for the name of his theory was Invarience Theory, not relativity.

Are you suggesting that the concept of speed (as in the speed of light) does not embody within itself the concept of time? Unfortunately for posterity, in my opinion, when Einstein began thinking about the invarience of the speed of light he seems never to have questioned the nature of time as it factors into that core issue. Instead, he accepted the then (and still even now) prevailing concept of time in physics, which is that time is that which is measured by clocks. Had Einstein stopped for a moment to seriously question that flawed notion, I believe we probably would have had a very different theory issuing from his incredibly brilliant mind. And how can you claim that quantum mechanics is not time dependent? Please look at the Schršdinger Equation describing the space-time dependence of quantum mechanical systems and then explain to me how it is not time dependent.

As to how my concept of time would help set things straight, I believe that by starting with a clean sheet of paper and reformulating physics on the basis of a sound, rational concept of time rather than on the basis of the circular reasoning upon which it currently is based we almost certainly would avoid re-creating contradictory and puzzling situations such as the incompatibility of relativity and quantum mechanics; I believe it might allow those two theories to speak the same language!

If I knew precisely how to go about doing all this myself, I'd be sitting here right now admiring my bloody Nobel Prize instead of chatting on the internet with you, now wouldn't I? Regardless of not having the answers, I will continue to argue that the so-called "operatonal definition" of time, which currently is a key underpinning of physics, is fatally flawed. And I strongly suspect that this flaw has managed to propagate itself in unpredictable ways throughout the science, creating the sorts of puzzles and disconnects that we currently find in physics. Fixing these problems will not be easy, quick, or painless. If I knew how to do it, you wouldn't be reading this.

- How exactly does relativity fit into your viewpoint? For example, when the clock of a stationary observer measures a lesser elapsed time than a moving observer as a result of relative motion, how do you interpret that?

-- Please see above.

- Are you imagining the universe (with reference to its 'configuration') as a three-dimensional space, or four-dimensional, or more?

--Three.

- What is the precise mathematical formulation of how the equivalence of energy and mass derives from that of space and time?

--As I have written in my essay, I believe that our current units of time are derivative. And I explain in the essay exactly why I make that assertion. As Richard Feynman said, space and time should be measured in the same units. And I maintain that those units should be units of displacement, not time. Moreover, I mean this literally. Now, take the mathematical definition of energy or work; they are defined as force times distance. Now write out that formula, and wherever you find units of time, replace them with units of length. This is simply dimensional analysis of the sort we learned in high school. When you do this you will see that the definition collapses to a simple statement that mass equals energy, as I stated in my essay. This is not rocket science. My personal belief is that because 19th Century scientists lacked a clear understanding of the nature time, they in essence unwittingly defined mass and energy to be equivalent when they wrote the mathematical definition of energy, but the fog surrounding the true nature of time kept this fact from being apparent to them as well as to everybody else until Einstein, who had to discover it the hard way because he unthinkingly bought into the evil operational definition of time rather than explicitly questioning the fundamental nature of time, per se.

- How does this tally with the idea, which most physicists currently hold, that space and time are discrete and that their smallest units are the Planck units?

-- I currently have no opinon on this.

- Can you possibly provide a page reference for the assertions of Brian Greene that you have mentioned and with which you take issue?

-- Yes, in the paperback edition I'm using it's on page 37 under 'The Effect on Time: Part II'. The cursed root of all evil in physics!

I hope you will find this helpful. I wish I had all the answers, but I obviously don't, nor do I claim to. But I do claim to have a good starting point from which we might eventually arrive at some better answers than we have now, minus the built-in logical flaw.

Lest there be any misunderstanding of my position regarding relativity and quantum mechanics, I have never said, nor am I so foolish as to suggest, that they are "wrong," per se. I am an empiricist if nothing else. These theories both yield accurate predictions about observable phenomena, the most accurate predictions currently available. Hence, they obviously have much to recommend them.

I guess that what I've been trying to say, probably not very effectively, is that I have deep suspicions regarding their logical foundations (owing, of course, to their reliance on the so-called "operational definition" of time, the underlying logic of which I maintain is seriously flawed). It certainly is possible for theories based on logically faulty assertions to make accurate predictions, up to a point. But then when pressed too far, they almost certainly will break down as a result of the flaw in their underpinning.

I simply believe the occasion is long overdue when physicists should take a long, hard, soul-searching look at their reliance on the evil operational definition of time and consider whether the science would not benefit from leaving that flawed notion behind and moving forward to rebuild the ediface on a sounder footing.

And I can certainly understand the reluctance of current practitioners of the science even seriously to consider doing so. To begin with, it would require them to acknowledge frankly that are less than blameless in allowing things to progress down the current road unchecked as far as they have. Moreover, as I noted in my previous posting, rebuilding the ediface on a sounder footing would not be easy, quick, or painless. Quite the contrary. But I'm convinced that it's the correct and needed thing to do.

I don't know whether you've taken up the relatively recent fad of sudokus. I've personally become somewhat addicted to them. In the course of working them, however, I've noticed a striking parallel between them and my take on the current state of physics. To wit, even though one may make a faulty choice early in the process of solving the sudoku, the consequences of that faulty choice might not become apparent until long after many, many additional (and possibly all totally correct) steps have been made; then as one finally begins filling in the final square one is faced with an inescapable logical contradiction, the source of which has long since been lost in past moves. I view problems such as the incompatibility of relativity and quantum mechanics to be perhaps a symptom of a similar sort of thing. The sins of the parents being visited on the children so to speak.

"Unfortunately I don't have time" Well, I can see from today's h2g2 Front Page what no doubt has been filling at least a bit of your time. The configuration of the universe no doubt has changed considerably as you've worked on that entry. Congratulations!

So, BB, inasmuch as it's now been roughly two weeks since you've posted to this thread, I'm left wondering whether you're simply off thinking about the topic or whether you've abandoned the field altogether, or even whether perhaps, heaven forbid, you might have run afoul of a lorry on the A6 and are laid up in hospital unable to manipulate a keyboard. If you could please be so kind as to give me some idea, whenever you're able, whether I should expect our dialogue ever to be resumed, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you.