The Fibonacci Sequence, Steady-State Evolution, and why it is probably impossible to go backwards in Time.
The Fibonacci sequence is a numerical sequence in which each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers. If you are not familiar with this sequence, I suggest doing some research on your own, as this sequence appears in a surprising number of domains in nature. We will consider it here as a useful blueprint to examine another, even more puzzling natural phenomenon.
In this post, I am conducting a thought experiment that applies the Fibonacci sequence to an issue that I have been grappling with for some time now: Time. Einstein changed our understanding of time by proving that time and space were two sides of the same coin. Yet man’s direct experience of time is defined more in terms of the one-directional passage from one steady state to another. Why is this so? And why is that the present and future are accessible, but the past is not? There must be a phenomenon that is occurring and that we are misidentifying as time.
So let’s look into it! Our starting point for this journey, the Fibonacci sequence, is (partially) pictured below:
Let’s investigate, focusing for now on the part of the Fibonacci sequence circled here in red:
In this bit of the sequence, 1 is the initial axiom (the steady state) and I am calling 2 the future steady state, and 3 the future future steady state. The numbers in this sequence are merely symbols that represent reality; and as time (steady-state transformation) is defined by a “building block” approach, the Fibonacci sequence becomes a useful tool for examining the logical underpinnings of the functions that execute this transformation.
To begin executing the sequence, we “activate” three numbers: in this section of the sequence, those numbers are 1, 2, and 3. The steady state is added to the future steady state, and as a result we get the future future steady state.
The linear progression arrow at the bottom of this diagram represents the direction of steady state transformation. This “arrow of time” is strictly a one-direction asymmetry provided by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. One of the primary goals of this thought experiment is to poke at that arrow.
In the next diagram, we start to distinguish between the numbers in the sequence that are being activated by the execution of the sequence at a given moment, and those that are not playing an active role in the calculation (progression) of the sequence. 5 and 8 in the top half of the diagram are inaccessible potential future states that are irrelevant (unknowable although progressively more predictable) in the execution of the calculation that produces the future future steady state.
As we slide the execution part of the sequence over to the right, 1 exits the execution portion of the equation and ceases having any bearing on the creation of the future future steady state. 1 becomes the past state, the memory. The memory can inform the comprehensive narrative, but it cannot be revisited and plays no active role in the execution of the equation from this point forward. That point is an important one.
Let’s remove the numbers and examine how the execution of the sequence affects steady-state transformation. We will start to refer to the execution of the sequence as experienced reality, and the equation (without the integers) becomes the explicit movement from steady state to future steady states. Inactive states before and after experienced reality become abstractions that inform our actions only indirectly.
We will also change the arrow to the definition linear time, since that is how we directly experience and perceive time.
We will take a moment in this next diagram to further subjectify the execution of series experienced reality. The steady state becomes the current iteration of the self (the present), the future steady state becomes unfolding events (the immediate future, as it is experienced directly), and the outcome becomes the future self.
Memory is defined as previous experiences, and the distant future can be considered the desired future self. Both of those last two are, of course, inaccessible… although we know that the desired future self is arguably predictable and can be eventually accessible. The same is not true for previous experiences; they have been executed, and are now permanently removed from experienced reality and cannot be directly revisited.
Let’s now take a moment to look at the symbols that actually force the execution of the series experienced reality. The plus sign has to be a process that allows the current self to deal with unfolding events as they occur. There are several cybernetic control loops that can be introduced as the plus symbol and make sense. I am choosing John Boyd’s OODA loop, as I find that to be the most battle-tested cybernetic loop that I know of. If you are not familiar with the OODA loop and are enjoying this ride so far, I suggest you take some time to pause here and research OODA science. I will refrain from taking a deep dive into OODA science right here myself, as much as I’d like to!
The equal symbol here is simple. It is the arrow of time itself, the inescapable march of linear progression.
Now we will need to introduce a new definition:
Dialectic Engine: As described by John Boyd, a back-and-forth process of using existing systems to tear apart old concepts and propose new systems based on the interaction between the internal components of the comprehensive system and the external components. That’s a mouthful, but what I’m trying to say here is that the dialectic engine is the back and forth analysis and synthesis of experience based on combining internal mechanisms with external mechanisms.
Armed with that, we see that in the diagram there is actually a dialectic engine nested inside of another dialectic engine. The addition part of the equation and the sequence itself both interact with reality using a combination of existing internal mechanisms and external input. They both wrap the external into the internal, and produce comprehensive system progression through linear time.
These dialectic engines are recursive by nature, meaning they refer to parts of themselves as they redefine themselves. This creates a looping mechanism in which the dialectic engines (which are themselves loops) are parts of the larger dialectic engine. We can take this and bring back in the Fibonocci sequence to see what we have developed, and how it matches up with the pattern of integers.
We take our dialectic engine diagrams and plug them into our sequence:
… and map it out over more of the sequence…
… and map it out indefinitely, following the steady state evolution of linear time. The loops double back on themselves and produce larger loops, while the system undergoing the process of experienced reality marches ever-forward, growing, adapting, evolving, but never incorporating integers from previous states, as that would throw off the entire sequence and render the equation invalid.
An invalid equation has no meaning. Past steady states provide contextual awareness, but in order for the experience of reality to generate vitality and growth, previously executed integers cannot be reintroduced. If the experience of reality can be accurately described as a series of recursive dialectic control loops, and if the recursive and dialectic Fibonacci sequence maps out a model of how this reality is executed, we are left with the recognition that revisiting old integers would cause disfunction in the mind of the self, an absolute loss of context and comprehension, and perhaps even of a loss of being. After all, what would you be if for a period of time your steady state evolution ran backwards? Would a thought even be possible? Would your experience of reality make any sense whatsoever?
Time is an illusion. When we say time, we usually mean linear steady-state evolution, which is an inescapable reality. Steady-state evolution is not only real, but may also be the only inescapable condition of existence, and the best description for infinity.
