There is a bug in the metaphysics of scientific reasoning and it’s caused by the very nature of human experience. The arrow of time.

Ask a physicist if time is a scalar or a vector and they will tell you that it’s both. Huh? From which reference frame? “Well it depends on how you define it.”

Stop right there! Science is not in the business of arbitrarily defining things. Science is in the business of quantifying things in respect to other things, so what is time quantified in respect to?

A different starting assumption on the meaning of a symbol is by definition a different reference frame - a different perspective. And yet science prides itself on the very notion of “objectivity”. That things are true irrespective of whether we believe them or not. The universe is the way it is - not the way we want it to be. It owes us no explanation! So how is it possible that we can have multiple “objective” time ontologies?

Scientists always leave out the fine print. Things are true only IF you accept and interpret results against the pre-supposed axioms. The seven base SI units.

OK. Can you present me with a convincing argument as to why I should accept the SI units without appealing to pragmatism or common sense? As Dawkins said “Science works. Bitches”. I don’t dispute that. I am simply wondering if it can work even better if we were to align our units to the ontology of the universe. Also, what do you mean by “works”?

Science makes accurate predictions, you say? Which conception/definition of time are you using to parse the word “prediction”?

Dear scienctific method: You are guilty of a performative contradiction. You are comitted to a definition of time by the very meaning of the English word “prediction”! Given a deterministic information source I (subject/experiment) a prediction is a correct guess of a FUTURE observation/measurement of I.

Time(0) is The Big Bang, so how do we define the word “future”: I(time+N). N of what ? What is time grounded in?

SI defines the second in relation to the cesium atom. We have defined time in terms of mass. This conception violates the first law of thermodynamics at time(0)! You can’t create matter/energy out of nothing! You can’t define time in terms of something that doesn’t exist! - this is a circular dependency!

The symbol-grounding problem breaks all of our languages and Mathematics is not immune to this bug!

Did cesium atoms exist at t(1), or t(10) after the Big Bang? At the other end of the spectrum - does time continue to exist after the heat death of the universe and beyond maximum entropy? Is spacetime infinite even though quantum physicists hate infinities?

I don’t like any of the answers modern physics is giving me!

And so I asked the question: What is time and what fundamental unit would I derrive it from? I don’t know yet.

My instincts (biases?) lead me towards Shannon entropy only because I grok it and I know how to measure it, but maybe the right answer hides in Von Neumann entropy.

I am skeptical of Gibbs and Boltzmann entropy because it pre-supposes an ‘arrow’ of time. Maybe assuming that time has an arrow/direction is a mistake? Perhaps we learned nothing from the blunder that was geocentrism?

Having spoken to a number of physicists I am also skeptical of their abbility to navigate the sunk costs fallacy. I am looking for a first principles approach. Tabula rasa.

Could we derrive time from entropy/entanglement?