Quantum Weirdness
One interpretation of quantum physics is that the world does not exist in a real form until a measurement, or observation, is made. Until then, it only exists as some Platonic set of probabilities. How can this be? If the ideas in paper 1 (Why do things exist and why is there something rather than nothing?) are correct, then the surface of an existent entity previously known as "absolute nothing" causes the formation of new instances of "nothing", and therefore new instances of the existent entity previously knowns as "nothing" next to its surface. Let's say this only happens next to a surface unchanging in position and shape, so as to provide a stable surface, or nucleation site, for the new instances of these entities to form next to. Then, one could say that when a measurement is made, the measuring system interacts with that to be measured and temporarily stops the entities that compose it from changing shape. This allows new entities to form next to it. Then, other new entities form next to them. This process continues. This means that a measurement can temporarily stop an entity from changing, which allows its surface to act as a nucleation site and which allows the rest of the world to form, or crystallize, around it.
The origin of probability in Quantum Physics
Suppose one has an entity, called A, previously known as "absolute nothing" as in paper 1 (Why do things exist and why is there something rather than nothing?). New entities are formed in a layer, called layer 1, next to its surface in order to cover the entire surface. Because these entities define location, or position, there are no locations until after the entities form, and once the entities form, each one defines a location. Looking back on this, the human mind which thinks that space is infinitely continuous and that locations already exist, wonders why the entities in layer 1 formed in the positions it did. It thinks that they could have formed in any of an infinite number of locations and thinks that there are probabilities for forming in each one of these infinite locations, but it's forgetting that there were no locations until after they formed. So, the presence of probabilities may be kind of an artifact of the mind's assumption that locations pre-exist before entities, or particles, do.
Black hole information paradox
The equations of quantum physics work just as well with a negative sign for time as with a positive sign. This theoretically means that you should be able to work out exact knowledge about particle positions and properties (e.g., information) in the past based on their current positions, properties, momentum, etc. Because of this, then information is supposed never lost in quantum physics. But, apparently Stephen Hawking found that it was at the event horizon of a black hole. That is, information about particles that go past this horizon is lost because if it were to come out, the horizon scrambles it into a totally random state. Some comments on this are below.
A. Just because you can change the sign of the time variable in an equation doesn't mean time can run backwards in real life.
B. Because quantum physics is based on probability and never knowing exactly where and when a particle is until it's observed, I'm not sure why it would be possible to reconstruct past positions and properties from the current positions and properties.
C. Maybe, you can just restart the time clock at the time information gets to the event horizon.
Time and Relativity
To me, time is not fundamental. It's just a function of physical things happening (e.g., physical change). If there were absolutely no physical change in the universe, there would be no time. This explains why time is moving irreversibly from past to future: because things keep happening. To go from future to past, there would have to be a reduction in the number of things, or events, that have already happened in the universe. This doesn't occur. Even if the events of a process look like they're happening in reverse, like if a broken cup spontaneously reassembles, this doesn't mean that time is going backwards; it just means that additional physical events have happened that reassemble the cup and that happen to look like the previous events. But because physical change is still happening as the cup is reassembled, and the number of events is still increasing, time is still moving forward.
On a related note, physicists say that time is related to entropy or the amount of disorder in a system. Because entropy increases in the universe as a whole with time, physicists wonder why there would be very low entropy (disorder) at the beginning of the universe. But, this makes sense because if the universe started from a single existent state which then proliferated to produce our current universe, there would have been initially a very low amount of disorder. Additionally, based on the above reasoning, there would not have been any events, or shape changes in the existent entities previously referred to as the "absolute lack of all", that had occurred yet at the beginning of the universe, which also suggests a very low level of disorder, so if time is based on physical change, or events happening, time would start with 0 and move constantly forward as the number of physical changes in these entities, or events happening, increases in the universe.
As discussed in the paper entitled Why do things exist and why is there something rather than nothing?, all physical change in the universe is related to the changes in shape and relative motion of the existent entities previously referred to as the absolute lack of all, or "nothing". This suggests that the rate of change of time is somehow related to the shape and motion changes of these entities. This fits with the idea of a clock which involves the periodic motion of something (hands on a clock moving in a circle, atomic oscillations, etc.). According to the Special Theory of Relativity, time slows down as things approach the speed of light and stops at the speed of light. This suggests that the clock motions slow down and then stop, which suggests that the shape changes in the existent entities slow down and then stop. This then suggests that photons are existent entities that are not changing in shape. Their internal motions that might serve as a clock have stopped.
In regard to relativity, the existent entities mentioned above and described in Why do things exist and why is there something rather than nothing? are the fundamental units of space, location and existence itself. Indeed all matter in the universe is due to how these entities change shape, move and interact with each other. The entities in different sub-regions of the universe can change shape and relative position in different ways than the entities in other sub-regions depending on the conditions in that sub-region. This means that observer A that's moving at a different speed than observer B is doing so because the entities of which A is composed and which surround A are moving at different speeds than the entities of which B is composed. So, if time is a function of the changes in shape and relative position of these entities, then observer A moving at a different speed will observe time moving at a different rate than observer B because the changes in shape and relative position of their existent entities in and around A are different from those in and around B. All time (and location/coordinate system) is relative and depends on the changes in shape and relative position of the entities in a given sub-region of the bigger universe.
Also, many physicists think that just because they can change the sign of a variable in an equation describing a physical phenomenon that the physical process this variable describes should also go in reverse. That is, because they change the t (for time) variable on their paper from positive to negative, they think that time itself should be able to go backwards. It's always seemed strange, and maybe even a little arrogant, why physicists assume this should be so.
Why Is Math So Effective at Describing the Universe?
Many mathematicians and physicists think that because mathematics is so useful in describing the universe, that there must be something more fundamental about math and that it might exist in an abstract form in a Platonic realm. But, I don't think it's that complicated. I think the reason math works so well at describing the universe is that math was invented by humans to describe the universe. For example, the concept "1 + 1 = 2" in the mind is meant to describe what happens when you have an apple and then you move another apple over to it and put them in a group, and what you get is a larger group of apples. We describe this in language as 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. This is math, invented by humans (or other beings on other worlds if they exist), being used to describe the universe. It doesn't seem mysterious to me.
This comment was first posted at https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/the-singular-universe-and-the-reality-of-time/comment-page-1/#comments
References
1. Granet, Roger; https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/filecabinet/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing
2. Granet, Roger; https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/the-singular-universe-and-the-reality-of-time/comment-page-1/#comments