Department of BioEngineering

Nagaoka University of Technology

Nagaoka 940-21, Japan

e-mail: kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp

Keywords: Asynchronicity, Category, Clock, Communication, Synchronicity, Time

Category is a double-edged sword. Unless categories are available, we cannot recognize the outside world properly. At the same time, categories set an unintended stipulation on the manner of how we can perceive the outside world. A case in point is interaction. Particle interaction in high energy physics, for instance, is quite different from animal interaction in ethology. Although the same term interaction is used in both disciplines, what is implied differs significantly between the two. Of course, particle in high energy physics as a category differs from animal in ethology as another category. This observation on interaction comes to suggest two possibilities. One is to let interaction be derivative of a more fundamental category such as a particle or an animal, and another is to let interaction be more basic compared to individual object categories. Interaction can be synchronous with the presence of individually itemized objects if it is taken to be derivative of the latter. On the other hand, interaction prior to itemized individuals is asynchronous with the presence of the latter. Interaction is thus categorized into two classes; synchrnonous and asynchronous.

The origin of synchronous interaction is descriptive and methodological. If one considers an object out there as if a physicist perceives an isolated system, the interaction acting in its inside is synchronous with the presence of the object. Synchronous interaction proceeding inside an object out there is also taken to be synchronous with its identification through a measurement external to the object, because it is claimed to be identifiable as such externally. External measurement being synchronous with internal interaction is however methodological in that synchronicity is merely of an imposed character instead of being something to be generated internally. Synchronicity is no more than a descriptive artifact since the term synchronicity has already been accepted in our language without explicating how to implement it in the first place. What is more, once it is declared, the descriptive constraint of synchronicity comes to let synchronous interaction prevail in the object. Descriptive synchronicity of every component constituting an object induces synchronous interaction between the components. Descriptive perspicuity of an object (Farre, 1994) necessarily induces synchronous interaction of descriptive origin.

Synchronous interaction of descriptive origin will however incorporate into itself a very queer aspect if the interaction is taken to be of a communicative nature (Matsuno, 1989). Sending an arbitrary communicative message from the sender is not synchronous with receiving it at the receiver. In order to maintain synchronicity between the sender and the receiver at any moment, it would be required to let the receiver be informed of the message to be received in advance. The actual communication is however always retarded towards the receiver. Precisely for this reason, it is the advanced communication which would make the overall communication synchronous. The advanced communication is such that when it juxtaposes the retarded one at the receiver, the net contribution of communication may be just nullified in the effect from moment to moment. Synchronous interaction of descriptive origin comes to precipitate nullification out of the retarded and the advanced communications, that is, a standing communication which carries no net communication to be conveyed.

In fact, such a nullification of the retarded and the advanced communications is firmly confirmed in the presence of synchronous interaction. Electromagnetism is an example. Electromagnetic interaction between oscillating dipoles placed in a closed box would require both the retarded and the advanced potential in order to fix the electromagnetic field within the box at every moment. Synchronous interaction between the oscillating dipoles could only be accomplished in the form of a standing interaction exhibiting no propagative activity through nullification of the retarded and advanced potentials due to each dipole. However, the preparation of the advanced potential is extremely difficult and remains next to impossible in three dimensional space because its propagation is contracting in the inward direction instead of being expanding in the outward. Fabricating a boundary condition making a contracting wave is hard to implement in material terms because of the presence of an immense number of degrees of freedom to be coordinated in a uniquely controlled manner. Synchronous interaction between the oscillating dipoles could at most be a theoretical artifact and is not something to be materialized through natural processes. A similar difficulty also applies to synchronous interaction based upon nullification between the retarded and advanced communications.

Difficulty in materializing synchronous interaction now comes to be at odds with the possibility of letting interaction be derivative of the more fundamental individual objects that can be categorized as such. The alternative is asynchronous interaction.

Interaction prior to and being asynchronous with the presence of individualized objects is to take place through the retarded communication, thus rendering the foundation of the objects less solid and eventually fragile. A standing communication of a non-propagative nature that is consistent with the presence of individually itemized objects is no more available to asynchronous interaction. Accordingly, categories pertaining to the objects would lose their former solid foundation. Asynchronous interaction is simply incompatible with static categories.

Propagative communication in the form of the retarded communication is strictly local both in space and in time compared with the standing communication presuming a global coordination in the light of nullification of the retarded and advanced communications everywhere at any moment. The present locality of a propagative communication now raises a formidable problem of how to describe the whole body every individual agent of which is communicating with others in a propagative manner. The condition of a standing communication being consistent with the presence of invariant objects and their corresponding categories does not apply anymore. Asynchronous interaction urges us to have an alternative scheme of categorization, if ever possible.

What has been unique to synchronous interaction is internal consistency latent in any dynamics described in the form of the present tense. Sharing the same moment specified by the present tense everywhere would certainly guarantee the legitimacy of the principle of the excluded middle as a reference according to which the synchronicity may be examined (Matsuno and Salthe, 1995). However, the present tense is not the only way to ascertain synchronicity. Internal consistency latent in the form of the present perfect can also guarantee a synchronicity because sharing the same moment specified by the present perfect everywhere is possible in the finished record. Of course, these two are different. Synchronous interaction in the form of the present perfect is weaker than a similar synchronous interaction in the present tense, the latter of which asserts for synchronicity at any moment of the present tense.

Asynchronous interaction that is operative in the form of the present progressive can be transformed into synchronous interaction in the present perfect. Needless to say, synchronous interaction in the present tense can also be transformed into the similar one in the present perfect. The difference is within whether synchronicity should be conceived of only in the present perfect or more generally in the present tense. The likelihood of synchronicity in the present tense is at most metaphysical in that there is no empirical means to ascertain global sharing of the same moment at any present moment. In contrast, synchronicity in the present perfect is subject to empirical confirmation because of the availability of finished records.

Asynchronous interaction in the present progressive, when transformed into synchronous one in the present perfect, comes to comply with what the synchronous interaction eventually fulfills. Observing the principle of the conservation of energy is an example. In particular, fulfilling the conservation of energy through asynchronous interaction in the present progressive is local both in space and in time since there is no global coordination on the spot (Matsuno, 1995a). Symptomatic to the local characteristics is the activity towards energy resources in the form of asynchronous interaction (Matsuno, 1995b). Emergence of energy consumers is a material manifestation of asynchronous interaction in the present progressive.

Prerequisite to the emergence of energy consumers is energy accumulation. It is this energy accumulation taking place in three dimensional space which is responsible for the occurrence of individualized material objects perceived as categories. Take, for instance, a proton as an aggregate of three quarks. Interaction among the three quarks is almost synchronous in that all of the three constituent components join in forming and maintaining an organized material structure in synchronous manner. At the same time, the interaction is asynchronous in initiating a communicative interaction among an arbitrary set of three quarks that would end up with forming a proton. Furthermore, the proton is also asynchronous in interacting with a free electron outside, an eventual synthesis out of the two of which would form a hydrogen atom. A proton as a stable aggregate of three quarks is a material manifestation of synchronous interaction among the three in synchronously maintaining every one of the three as a constituent part of the organized body, while remaining asynchronous towards its outside until a further synchronization with others such as forming a hydrogen atom would arise.

This interplay between asynchronous and synchronous interaction makes every energy aggregate to be an enclosure of asynchronous interaction almost completely, but not completely in the literal sense. Propagative communication in the form of the retarded communication cannot reduce to a standing one, and accordingly remains asynchronous. The present persistence of asynchronicity in interaction prevents a complete enclosure of asynchronous interaction within an individualized local object from occurring in reality. Asynchronous interaction in the present progressive is ubiquitous, and its extent could only be mitigated from time to time as being punctuated by appearance of relatively stable energy aggregates within which asynchronous interaction could almost completely be enclosed.

Elimination of asynchronous interaction from the realm of material sciences in general and physics in particular is, however, most strenuous and persistent. Equations of motion carrying the names of Newton, Einstein, Schroedinger and Dirac are all exemplars of synchronous interaction in the present tense. In other words, they are all expressions about simultaneous events within their choices of space-time framework. However, there is one exception. Boltzmann perceived that molecules in the gas interact asynchronously with each other based upon his stosszahl ansatz stating that molecules would lose their memory of past collisions with others except for most recent ones. Any two molecules separated more than a few collisions away between the two are asynchronous with their movements because of the absence of a physical means to coordinate the two in synchronous manner. Needless to say, Boltzmann came up with the new notion of synchronous interaction in the present tense that can be applied only to the velocity distribution of molecules. Synchronization between the velocity distribution and the rate of its temporal variations makes the Boltzmann’s kinetic equation of motion to allow no asynchronicity. The synchronous interaction in the present tense would eventually establish an equilibrium distribution as a stable category. Boltzmann’s velocity distribution carries with itself no remnant of asynchronous interaction, with the consequence of no further variations in the category thereof.

As far as empirical facts are concerned, on the other hand, there have been full of evidence manifesting variations in categories to be applied to material objects. Evolutionary emergence of new species witnesses incontrovertible variations in categories to appear in natural processes. This points to ubiquity of asynchronous interaction in the present progressive, thus rendering a complete enclosure of asynchronous interaction untenable. An extreme case of asynchronous interaction not completely enclosed within an object of whatever kind is our natural language incorporating into itself the self-reflexive or self-referential capability.

Consider, for instance, a paradox pointing to a Crete people who said people in Crete is a liar. It is not clear from this statement alone whether it is true or false. There is no guaranteed synchronous consistency between the statement made by the Crete people and the judgment an observer of the statement would make. Asynchronous interaction between making and judging any statement in a natural language could have a potential for destroying the whole linguistic institution through amplifying the inconsistent discrepancy between the two modes of activity. Despite that, the linguistic phenomenon has persisted up until the present time. This has been due to a persistent enclosure of asynchronous interaction almost completely. The human brain as a linguistic organ has been responsible for an almost complete enclosure of asynchronous interaction. What is more, an inevitable leaking of asynchronicity out of the then available enclosure may serve as a further impetus for initiating another enclosure on one level higher in the hierarchy. This phenomenon just coincides with appearance of a new category. Our linguistic vehicle thus has intrinsic capacity for coping with emergent categories to appear in the material world.

Most indicative of emergent categories in the material world are biologically evolutionary processes and natural selection to be operative there. Asynchronous interaction in the present progressive now provides the operation of natural selection with a new perspective. Natural selection refers to a temporary enclosure of asynchronous interaction in progress in that it distinguishes the temporary enclosure from the preceding asynchronous interaction. The distinction is neither competitive nor comparative. It is based upon the incompleteness of temporary enclosure of asynchronous interaction. Put differently, natural selection rests upon the dynamic capacity intrinsic to the transference from the present progressive to the present perfect. This exhibits a marked contrast to another dynamic mode of letting both the present perfect and the present tense coexist, in the latter of which synchronous interaction in the present tense prevails. Natural selection in its essence is about asynchronous interaction in the present progressive.

Talking about emergent or plastic categories imposes upon us a psychological stress of making a definite statement on the subject matter on the one hand and of making reservation of committing ourselves to definite categories on the other. If one takes the internalist stance enabling one to categorize the outside world from a particular local perspective (Matsuno, 1996), there would inevitably occur certain collisions against those from the other local perspectives. Negotiation of those collisions is a temporary enclosure of asynchronous interaction in the present progressive. The outcome is of course not guaranteed beforehand. Conversely, if one remains firm on the ground keeping descriptive perspicuity being consistent with synchronous interaction in the present tense, there would be no room of emergent and plastic categories. Our natural language has provides us with the capacity to live with asynchronous interaction to a limited extent.

At the same time, our linguistic institution has at least three tenses, the present perfect, the present and the present progressive, among others. Any of the present and the present progressive can be transformed into the present perfect. If one restricts oneself only to the transference from the present to the present perfect, there would be no need to worry about asynchronous interaction because everything is globally consistent whether in the form of the present or of the present perfect. In contrast, the transference from the present progressive to the present perfect implies the switching from the local to the global perspective. This comes to imply that asynchronous interaction in the present progressive has to be accommodated into synchronous interaction in the present perfect. As a matter of fact, the instance of the present perfect as a legitimate form of the tense in our natural language does allow us to see only synchronous interaction surviving in the completed record.

Dynamics perceived in the perspective admitting only two tenses of the present tense and the present perfect as encountered in the form of the equations of motion in physics even including Boltzmann’s kinetic equation is incompetent in dealing with asynchronous interaction in the present progressive. The competence of our natural language for dynamics, on the other hand, is more than what physics has provided to us. The transference from the present progressive to the present perfect is more than what physics has come up with. It is this transference from the present progressive to the present perfect which is responsible for making categories plastic. It is easy to practice because every practitioner can participate in forming its own perspective. But, it is hard to think of how the global consistency among those categories could be established. Only those practitioners who can leave behind synchronous interaction in the present perfect while passing forward asynchronous interaction in the present progressive can successfully cope with emergent categories.

Farre, G. L., 1994. Philosophical reflections on the question of emergence. In: G. E. Lasker and

G. L. Farre (Eds.) Advances in Synergetics Vol. 1: Systems Research on Emergence. IIAS,

Windsor Ontario, pp. 63-67.

Matsuno, K., 1989. Protobiology: Physical Basis of Biology. CRC Press, Boca Raton Florida.

Matsuno, K., 1995a. Emergence arising fromthe chasm between experiencing and describing. In:

G. E. Lasker, and G. L. Farre (Eds.) Advances in Synergetics Vol. 2: Systems Research on

Emergecne. IIAS, Windsor Ontario, pp. 53-58.

Matsuno, K., 1995b. Consumer power as the major evolutionary force. J. theor. Biol. 173,

137-145.

Matsuno, K., 1996. Internalist stance and the physics of information. BioSystems 38, 111-118.

Matsuno, K., and Salthe, S. N., 1995. Global idealism /local materialism. Biol. & Philos. 10,

309-337.