Bijective Epistemology and Space–Time


A level of adequacy of a given model with physical world represents an important element of physics. In an “ideal” model each element in the model would correspond exactly to one element in the physical world. In such a model each element would have a direct epistemological correlation with exactly one element of the physical world. Such a model would become a perfect picture of the physical world. The possibility of misinterpretation, in a sense that one searches for physical existence of purely theoretically predicted elements of the model, would be excluded. In order to develop such a model we apply bijective function of set theory. Bijective function applied on time research shows model of space–time has no direct epistemological correlation in physical reality. Time is duration of changes which run in space. Duration does not run in time, duration is time.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. 1.

    Indeed, in the criterion of physical reality of bijective epistemology here proposed, a possible criticism regards the fact that there are probably things or phenomena that are not detectable at the present, even when using the current most sophisticated detectors, but could be detected—for instance—in a future, if the development of civilization will allow an appropriate progress in our techniques of revelation. In order to take account of this possibility, the idea of “enhanced senses” could be further improved and generalized with the concept of “ideally perfect senses”, where “ideally perfect” is meant to indicate just a perception of phenomena through the most sophisticated detectors or objects which are achieved thanks to the development of civilization.


  1. Barbour, J. B. (2000). The end of time: The next revolution in physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barbour, J. (2009). The nature of time. arXiv:0903.3489v1

  3. Barbour, J. B., & Bertotti, B. (1982). Mach’s principle and the structure of dynamical theories. Proceedings of Royal Society A, 382(1783), 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbour, J. B., Foster, B. Z. & Murchadha, N. O’ (2002). Relativity without relativity. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 19, 3217–3248. arXiv:gr-qc/0012089

  5. Caligiuri, L. M., & Sorli, A. (2013). Special theory of relativity postulated on homogeneity of space and time and on relativity principle. American Journal of Modern Physics, 2(6), 375–382. doi:10.11648/j.ajmp.20130206.25

  6. Caticha, A. (2011). Entropic dynamics, time and quantum theory. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 44(22), 225303; e-print arXiv:1005.2357v3 [quant-ph]

  7. Chiatti, L. (2012). The transaction as a quantum concept.

  8. Einstein, A., Podolski, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Elze, H. T. (2003). Quantum mechanics and discrete time from “timeless” classical dynamics. Lecture Notes in Physics (Vol. 633, p. 196). e-print arXiv:gr-qc/0307014v1

  10. Fiscaletti, D., & Sorli, A. (2008). Non-locality and the symmetrized quantum potential. Physics Essays, 21(4), 245–251.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fiscaletti, D., & Sorli, A. (2012). Three-dimensional space as a medium of quantum entanglement. Annales UMCS Sectio AAA: Physica, 57, 47–72.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fiscaletti, D., & Sorli, A. (2014). Non-local quantum geometry and three-dimensional space as a direct information medium. Quantum Matter, 3(3), 200–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Girelli, F., Liberati, S., & Sindoni, L. (2009). Is the notion of time really fundamental?. arXiv:0903.4876v1 [gr-qc]

  14. Gózdz, A., & Stefanska, K. (2008). Projection evolution and delayed choice experiment. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 104, 012007.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Licata, I. (2014). Transaction and non-locality in quantum field theory. European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 70, 00039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Markopoulou, F. (2009). Space does not exist, so time can.

  17. McTaggart, J. E. (1908). The unreality of time. Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, 17, 456–473.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Moreva, E., Brida, G., Gramegna, M., Giovannetti, V., Maccone, L. & Genovese, M. (2013). Time from quantum entanglement: an experimental illustration. arXiv:1310.4691

  19. Prati, E. (2009). The nature of time: From a timeless Hamiltonian framework to clock time of metrology. arXiv:0907.1707v1 [physics.class-ph]

  20. Rovelli, C. (1991). Time in quantum gravity: An hypothesis. Physical Review D, 43(2), 442–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rovelli, C. (2009). Forget time. arXiv:0903.3832v3 [gr-qc]

  22. Sorli, A., Fiscaletti, D., & Klinar, D. (2010). Time is a reference system derived from light speed. Physics Essays, 23(2), 330–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sorli, A., Fiscaletti, D., & Klinar, D. (2011). New insights into the special theory of relativity. Physics Essays, 24(2), 313–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yourgrau, P. (2006). A world without time: The forgotten legacy of Godel and Einstein. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Fiscaletti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fiscaletti, D., Sorli, A. Bijective Epistemology and Space–Time. Found Sci 20, 387–398 (2015).

Download citation


  • Space–time
  • Bijective function
  • Set theory
  • Bijective epistemology