# Abstract

Most biological processes are described as a series of interactions between proteins and other molecules, and interactions are in turn described in terms of atomic structures. To annotate protein functions as sets of interaction states at atomic resolution, and thereby to better understand the relation between protein interactions and biological functions, we conducted exhaustive all-against-all atomic structure comparisons of all known binding sites for ligands including small molecules, proteins and nucleic acids, and identified recurring elementary motifs. By integrating the elementary motifs associated with each subunit, we defined composite motifs which represent context-dependent combinations of elementary motifs. It is demonstrated that function similarity can be better inferred from composite motif similarity compared to the similarity of protein sequences or of individual binding sites. By integrating the composite motifs associated with each protein function, we define meta-composite motifs each of which is regarded as a time-independent diagrammatic representation of a biological process. It is shown that meta-composite motifs provide richer annotations of biological processes than sequence clusters. The present results serve as a basis for bridging atomic structures to higher-order biological phenomena by classification and integration of binding site structures.

# Introduction

Virtually every biological process is realized, at the atomic level, through a series of interactions between proteins and other molecules. Accordingly, most proteins, if not all, synchronously or asynchronously interact with multiple molecules ranging from single atom ions, small (non-polymer) molecules to proteins, nucleic acids and other macromolecules. The types and combinations of interactions in proteins are known to modulate their functions. For example, depending on their ligand-bound or ligand-free forms as well as interactions with corepressor or coactivator proteins, nuclear receptors can perform intricate transcriptional regulations . The activity of coronavirus 3C-like proteases is controlled by dimerization through their C-terminal domain which is absent from picornavirus 3C proteases . Furthermore, certain homologous proteins can catalyze completely different enzymatic reactions, namely transferase or hydrolase activities, by adopting different oligomerization states . Therefore, it is important to identify not only individual interactions, but also possible combinations of the interactions that can be accommodated by a protein to fully describe its molecular functions as well as to distinguish different functions among homologous proteins.

The advance in genome sequence technologies is making it more and more imperative to develop effective techniques for inferring protein functions from sequence information. To date, the most widely used approach for protein function prediction is the annotation transfer, which is based on the assumption that protein functions are similar if their sequences are similar . It has been gradually recognized, however, that such annotation transfer approaches may be unreliable in many cases . It has also been shown that function similarity is not a simple function of sequence similarity . These observations prompt us to have more detailed examination of the determinants of protein functions.

Structural information has been proved valuable for precisely understanding protein functions . Thanks to the structural genomics efforts , we now have a great wealth of structural information available for close examination of sequence-structure-function relationships of proteins. However, when global topologies or folds of protein structures are considered, it is often even more difficult to assign a specific function to a particular fold, for some folds include an extremely diverse set of proteins with diverse functions . The use of structural information is not limited to finding global fold similarity and distant evolutionary relationship. In particular, physical interactions between protein molecules and their ligands observed in experimentally solved protein structures allow more direct approaches to elucidate the relationship between protein structures and functions . To date, there have been many methods for detecting potential ligand binding sites based on structural similarity of proteins . Most of these methods are targeted at predicting protein functions at the level of ligand binding and catalytic activity. There have also been many studies on protein-protein interaction interfaces to understand biological functions of proteins in cellular contexts . However, apart from a few works , most of these studies are focused on particular types of interactions *per se* and do not explicitly address how the combination of interactions with small molecules and macromolecules modulates with biological function of proteins.

To understand the relationship between the patterns of interactions at atomic level and biological functions of proteins, we herein performed exhaustive all-against-all structural comparisons of binding site structures at atomic level using all structures available in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) , and identified recurring structural patterns of ligand binding sites to define *elementary motifs*. We then defined *composite motifs* by integrating the elementary motifs associated with individual subunits. In other words, protein subunits with the same combination of elementary motifs are said to share an identical composite motif. We then examined how such composite motifs correlated with protein functions as defined by the UniProt database . It is demonstrated that the similarity between composite motifs better corresponds with the similarity between functions compared to the similarity between protein sequences or between individual binding sites. Finally, by integrating all the composite motifs associated with particular functions, we define *meta-composite motifs*. It is shown that meta-composite motifs are useful to elucidate the rich internal structures of biological processes compared to sets of homologous sequence clusters.

# Results

## Identification of elementary and composite motifs

We first generated all biological units as annotated in the PDBML files, and then extracted 197,690 protein subunits which contained at least one ligand (non-polymer, protein or nucleic acid) binding site. Here, a ligand binding site of a subunit is defined as a set of atoms of the subunit that are in contact with some atoms of the ligand within 5Å. While we do not use any pre-defined non-redundant data set based on sequence similarity, the redundancy is taken care of after clustering similar structures (see below). In this manner, the structural diversity of proteins with highly homologous or identical amino acid sequences can be preserved in the following analyses while the structural redundancy is removed.

All-against-all structure comparisons of 410,254 non-polymer binding sites, 346,288 protein binding sites and 20,338 nucleic acid binding sites using the GIRAF structure search and alignment program followed by complete linkage clustering yielded 5,869, 7,678 and 398 clusters (with at least 10 members) of non-polymer, protein and nucleic acid binding sites, respectively. (We did not use in the following analyses small clusters with less than 10 members because some small clusters exhibited spurious similarities.) We refer to these clusters as *elementary motifs* in the following. An elementary motif can be regarded as a bundle of mutually similar atomic dispositions of binding sites (Fig. A). It should be noted that the elementary motifs are solely based on the binding site structures, and they do not directly include the identity of the binding partners. We have previously performed comprehensive analyses of elementary motifs . It was found that most elementary motifs were confined within homologous families. In some exceptional cases, motifs were shared across non-homologous families with different folds, which included motifs for metal, mononucleotide or dinucleotide binding for non-polymer binding sites and coiled-coil motifs for protein binding sites .

The set of all elementary motifs contained in a protein subunit is called the *composite motif* of the subunit (Fig. B,C). Thus, two subunits sharing the same set of elementary motifs are said to have the same composite motif. In total, 5,738 composite motifs, each of which is shared by at least 10 subunits, were identified. Our hypothesis is that thus defined composite motifs exhibit good correspondence with protein functions. In the example in Fig , while the three proteins (LAAO , KDM1 and PAO ) share the same elementary motif (N2) for FAD binding and they share the same domain folds (FAD/NAD(P)-binding domain and FAD-linked reductases C-terminal domain ), their biological functions are similar but different; and these differences correspond to the differences in their composite motifs.

## Characterization of composite motifs

  The number of elementary motifs that comprise a composite motif ranges from 1 to 20 (Fig. A). Approximately one third of the composite motifs (1975 out of 5738) consist of only one elementary motif and more than 90% of the composite motifs are composed of less than or equal to 5 elementary motifs. The number of composite motifs appears exponentially decreasing as the number of constitutive elementary motifs increases.

To characterize the diversity of composite motifs, the average and minimum sequence identities were calculated for pairs of subunits sharing the same composite motifs (Fig. B). Although the majority of composite motifs are shared between close homologs on average, many of them contain distantly related subunits. In particular, 118 composite motifs were shared between subunits whose sequence similarity could not be detected by BLAST . However, only three out of these 118 composite motifs consisted of more than one and at most two elementary motifs. Thus, if a composite motif consists of more than one elementary motif, it is most likely to comprise only homologous proteins.

By defining the similarity between two composite motifs as the fraction of shared elementary motifs (Eq. ), we also examined the similarity between different composite motifs as a function of minimum sequence identity between them (Fig. C). While many composite motifs share no elementary motifs for the entire range of sequence identities, some do share a significant fraction of their constitutive elementary motifs in spite of weak sequence similarities. It is also noted that the composite motif similarities widely vary for high sequence identities. Thus, while each composite motif comprises homologous proteins in most cases, the converse does not hold in general so that composite motif similarity hardly correlates with sequence similarity. This observation clearly demonstrates that it is not possible to take into account the structural diversity of binding sites and their combinations by using a representative set of proteins based on sequence similarity.

## Association of composite motif similarity with function similarity

In order to study the functional relevance of the composite motifs, we next examined the association between composite motif similarity and function similarity. Here, the function of a protein is defined as a set of controlled keywords provided in UniProt and the similarities for composite motifs and UniProt functions are defined by the Jaccard index (see Materials and Methods, Eq. ). For comparison, we also checked sequence identity as well as binding site similarity (Eq. ) as measures of subunit similarities in place of composite motif similarity (Fig. A). In order to reduce the bias due to the redundant data set, we randomly picked one representative from each composite or elementary motif, or sequence cluster (with 100% sequence identity cutoff) for this comparison. It is evident that the function similarity persists even for low composite motif similarities although the function similarity is not always 100% for 100% composite motif similarity. To the contrary, we can only infer high function similarities for high sequence or binding site similarities.

Since many UniProt function annotations, especially those of ligand binding activities, have been actually derived from the PDB entries, the high correlation between composite motifs and UniProt functions may appear trivial. However, the current elementary motifs that constitute composite motifs do not directly include the information of their ligands, but are solely based on their binding site structures. The bare binding site similarity does not correspond with the function similarity as strongly as the composite motif similarity. In addition, when we used only the UniProt functions under the Biological process category which are less directly related to molecular functions, we still observed the highest function similarity for a wide range of composite motif similarity compared to sequence or binding site similarities (Fig. B). These results demonstrate that composite motifs sharing a small fraction of elementary motifs imply more function similarity compared to bare sequence or binding site similarities.

When we examined the correspondence between composite motifs and UniProt functions excluding those composite motifs that consisted of only one elementary motif, the correspondence was found to be slightly better (Figs. C,D). This indicates that combinations of multiple elementary motifs may enhance accurate inference of specific protein functions.

Although the similarity between composite motifs implies similar functions, 15 composite motifs were found to be shared by completely different functions. 11, 3, and 1 of these composite motifs consisted of 1, 2, and 3 elementary motifs, respectively. 7 of them were due to improper annotations for artificially engineered proteins, to incomplete annotations in the UniProt, or to a wrong annotation in the PDB, and 3 were due to coiled-coil structures. Among the remaining 5 composite motifs, 2 composite motifs were actually found in the same dimeric complexes, and each of them consisted of only 1 elementary motif shared between remotely homologous proteins.

## Examples of composite motifs sharing the same elementary motif and fold but with different functions

We have already presented in Introduction an example that demonstrated different combinations of elementary motifs (i.e., composite motifs) might modulate function specificity (Fig. ). The analysis in the previous section showed that composite motif similarity is a good indicator of function similarity. In this section, we provide several examples of proteins that share the same elementary motif and the same fold, but have different composite motifs and different functions (Fig. ). These examples show that the difference in functions can be associated with the difference in composite motifs within the same family of proteins.

#### Glycine oxidase (GO) and glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GlpD)

GO from *Bacillus subtilis* (PDB 1RYI , chain A) and GlpD from *Escherichia coli* (PDB 2QCU , chain A) share the same elementary motif for binding the FAD cofactor, and despite the low sequence similarity ($\sim$ 14% sequence identity), they share the same fold (FAD/NAD(P)-binding domain ) according to the Matras fold comparison program (Fig. A). While GO forms a homotetramer and has 3 elementary motifs for protein binding, GlpD is monomeric (however, the latter may form a dimer ). In addition, they have their own elementary motif for binding the respective ligands (glycolic acid, GOA, in PDB 1RYI and phosphoenolpyruvate, phosphate ion, PO4, in PDB 2R46). Thus, they have different composite motifs. Although the shared elementary motif for FAD binding and the shared fold, they exhibit different enzymatic activities, EC 126.96.36.199 for GO and EC 126.96.36.199 for GlpD, and function in different contexts, thiamine biosynthesis and glycerol metabolism, respectively.

#### D-3-phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase (PGDH) and C-terminal-binding protein 3 (CtBP3)

PGDH from *E. coli* (PDB 1PSD , chain A, EC 184.108.40.206) and CtBP3 (also called CtBP1) from rat (PDB 1HKU , chain A, EC 1.1.1.-) share the same elementary motif for binding the NAD cofactor and the same folds (NAD(P)-binding Rossmann-fold domain and Flavodoxin-like fold ) with 25 % sequence identity (Fig. B). PGDH forms a homotetramer with one of its protein-protein interface located at its additional ACT domain , and is involved in L-serine biosynthesis. CtBP3, forming a homodimer or heterodimer with CtBP2, is involved in controlling the structure of the Golgi complex and acts as a corepressor targeting various transcription regulators . While these proteins may catalyze very similar reactions, their biological roles are clearly different.

#### $\beta$-trypsin and coagulation factor VII

Bovine $\beta$-trypsin (PDB 1G3C , chain A, EC 22.214.171.124) and human coagulation factor VII heavy chain (PDB 1WQV , chain H, EC 220.127.116.11) are both serine proteases with 40 % sequence identity. In these structures, they share the same elementary motif for protease inhibitors at the catalytic sites in addition to similar calcium ion binding sites although the latter do not belong to the same elementary motif (Fig. C). Factor VII heavy chain is in complex with its light chain counter part as well as with tissue factor, which shapes its functional form. On the other hand, $\beta$-trypsin is not known to form a similar complex structure. Thus, the difference in their complex structures can be associated with the difference in their functions: digestion for $\beta$-trypsin and blood coagulation for Factor VII.

#### Cytochrome $b_2$ and glycolate oxidase (GOX)

Mitochondrial cytochrome $b_2$, also known as L-lactate dehydrogenase, from *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* (PDB 1FCB , chain A, EC 220.127.116.11) and glycolate oxidase (GOX) from spinach (PDB 1AL7 , chain A, EC 126.96.36.199) share the TIM-barrel fold with 40 % sequence identity, and have the same elementary motif for flavin mononucleotide (FMN) (Fig. D). Although they have roughly equivalent homotetrameric complexes, the number of interacting subunits are different: a subunit of cytochrome $b_2$ interacts with all 3 other subunits whereas that of GOX interacts with only 2 out of 3 other subunits. In addition, cytochrome $b_2$ also has an elementary motif for heme binding in its additional heme-binding domain which is utilized for transferring electrons to cytochrome $c$ following oxidation of lactate ; such function is not associated with GOX.

## Meta-composite motifs for annotating functions

While each composite motif describes a particular state of a protein subunit, any biological process is realized as a series of interaction patterns. In this sense, composite motifs only represent snapshots of biological processes. To have a more integrative view of biological processes, we define *meta-composite motifs* by grouping all the composite motifs associated with particular functions (Fig. A,B). For 3,359 UniProt functions, 2,760 meta-composite motifs were identified. The number of composite motifs associated with meta-composite motifs ranged from 1 to 157, with the average of 2.39 (S.D 4.62). While the same UniProt function implies the same meta-composite motif by definition, the converse does not hold in general as there are more functions than meta-composite motifs. Meta-composite motifs thus allow us to understand protein functions as an ensemble of snapshots of ligand-bound states of proteins. For comparison, we analogously defined meta-sequence motifs by associating each function with corresponding sequence clusters (complete linkage). We defined two types of sequence clusters, the one (type-1 sequence cluster) is based solely on BLAST E-value cutoff of 0.05, the other (type-2 sequence cluster) is based on sequence identity cutoff of 100%. Thus, the former sequence clusters include a wide range of homologous sequences while the latter include only (almost) identical sequences.

We then compared the meta-composite motif or meta-sequence motif similarities with function similarity (Fig. C). It is not surprising that the function similarity appears lower for the meta-composite motif similarity than for composite motif similarity because, by definition, different meta-composite motifs always have different functions while different composite motifs may have identical functions. Although the differences are small, we can still observe that similar meta-composite motifs imply more similarity in functions than either type-1 or type-2 meta-sequence motifs (Fig. C).

It is also noted that the average size of meta-composite motifs (2.39$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}4.62) is statistically significantly greater than those of meta-sequence motifs (1.88$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}4.42 for type-1, 1.86$\pm$`<!-- -->`{=html}3.43 for type-2). This indicates that the composite motifs more finely dissect protein functions than the sequence clusters.

## Network structure of meta-composite motifs in biological processes

Since the meta-composite motifs are defined by grouping together all composite motifs associated with particular functions, they are more suitable for analyzing, rather than predicting, protein functions in terms of interaction states of proteins. For example, we can identify a meta-composite motif for the UniProt keyword "Transcription" (Fig. A), and subsequently connect the constituent composite motifs (nodes) based on relations such as common elementary motifs or common sequences. When a protein in one composite motif interacts with another protein in another (possibly the same) composite motif, an edge representing protein-protein interaction can be also drawn. In the case of composite motifs, nodes may be also characterized according to their constituent elementary motifs (i.e., interaction states). We can observe a variety of interaction states of nodes and relations between nodes. If two nodes share identical sequences, it reflects a transition between different interaction states, possibly changing their atomic structures. For example, there are PDB entries of human cellular tumor antigen p53 with or without bound DNA (e.g., PDB 1UOL and 2AC0 ) which share the same elementary motif for zinc binding but have different composite motifs depending on the presence or absence of the elementary motif for DNA binding. Similarly, there are PDB entries of yeast RNA polymerase II with or without bound DNA/RNA in which the subunit RPB2 (e.g., PDB 1I3Q , chain B and 1Y1W , chain B) share some elementary motifs for protein binding, but other corresponding protein binding sites belong to different elementary motifs due to slight conformational changes (not shown), and an elementary motif for binding DNA is present in only one of the entries; thus these subunits identical in amino acid sequence have different composite motifs which are connected by edges of the common protein binding motifs and of the common sequence. Such description is not possible with meta-sequence motifs (Fig. B) because sequence similarity alone cannot discriminate different interaction states.

To evaluate the properties of networks of meta motifs more generally and more quantitatively, we identified the meta motif for each upper-most keyword in the hierarchy of the UniProt Biological process category, and compared various network characteristics of meta-composite motifs against those of meta-sequence motifs (Fig. ). On average (Fig. A), meta-composite motifs include more nodes (i.e., composite motifs), more connected components, as well as more connections between nodes representing common sequences (identified by the UniProt accession) and protein-protein interactions, compared to both type-1 and type-2 meta-sequence motifs. In particular, the increased number of edges representing common sequences indicates that many identical proteins are split into different composite motifs. The same trend is also observed for a particular meta-composite motif obtained for the keyword "Transcription" (Fig. B). As expected, the type-1 meta-sequence motifs exhibit rather poor characteristics in most aspects because many homologs are grouped into large clusters so that differences in interaction states of proteins cannot be differentiated. While the type-2 meta-sequence motifs sometimes contain more edges for common elementary motifs, this is simply because many elementary motifs shared among homologous proteins are split into different sequence clusters irrespective of interaction states, which is reflected in the lower number of edges representing common sequences. Thus, the classification of proteins in terms of composite motifs allows us to inspect the organization of proteins involved in individual biological processes.

In summary, the observation that meta-composite motifs have more counts in nodes, connected components, common sequences and protein-protein interactions implies that meta-composite motifs discriminate the subtle differences in the interaction states or conformations of the proteins involved in the biological processes and such discrimination is not possible with meta-sequence motifs.

# Discussion

Structural classifications of proteins have been traditionally targeted at elucidating the universality of protein architectures based on the notion of structural domains. As such, it is not necessarily suitable for analyzing specific functions of particular proteins . In other words, the current protein structure classifications, for a good reason, ignore the differences among protein structures within the same families or folds. The examples shown in Figs. and clearly show that although those proteins share the same folds, they have varied functions. Such limitations of fold classifications with respect to specific assignment of protein functions have been known for some time . Recently, seemingly minute differences within protein folds are being recognized as determinants of functional specificity as exemplified by the concept of "embellishments" proposed by Orengo and coworkers . Although it is often assumed that domains are the units of functions, there are inherent limitations in this assumption. For example, it has been known that the combination of domains generates new functions , therefore it is questionable to assign one function to one domain. Furthermore, the very definition of domains is problematic as there exists no universally accepted definition of domains .

In this study, we avoided the complications regarding the definition of domains, and directly analyzed the atomic structures of binding sites irrespective of overall topology or homology of proteins. Nevertheless, it has been previously shown that thus identified elementary structural motifs are mostly confined within homologous protein families , especially for protein binding sites . In this sense, the classification of binding site structures are effectively not very different from the traditional protein classifications. However, by combining the elementary motifs found in individual subunit structures solved under different experimental conditions, it becomes possible to specify a particular interaction state for a particular subunit. Thus, the classification of proteins based on composite motifs differs from the traditional classification schemes in that the notion of the composite motif allows us to explicate the universality of binding site structures and the diversity of their combinations at the same time. It should be stressed that the redundancy of the current PDB is essential for identifying elementary and composite motifs since the diversity of atomic structures is not negligible even for highly homologous or identical proteins . In addition, different interaction states of the same protein are also useful for characterizing conformational transitions .

We have demonstrated that the similarity between composite motifs of proteins well indicates the similarity between their functions (Figs. A,B). A recent study also indicates that the integration of non-polymer and protein binding sites enhances the detection of functional specificity . These results manifest the importance of the context-dependent combination of ligand binding motifs for understanding protein functions. The application of composite motifs to function prediction, however, requires some caveats. In case when we know a protein structure with bound ligands, we first need to identify the elementary motifs to which the binding sites belong to. But it may not be always possible to identify all the necessary elementary motifs. In case when we only have a protein structure in its ligand-free form, it is necessary to predict its binding sites if any should exist. In this case, we need to rely on prediction based on prediction, which necessarily leads to low accuracy. While this limitation is inherent in any annotation transfer approaches, it is more stringent on the one based on composite motifs because it requires more interaction states to be solved for similar proteins. In any case, it is preferable to accumulate more structures in the PDB, not only those of completely novel folds, but also those of known folds but in new ligand-bound forms. It is worth noting that the function prediction by composite motif similarity is not based on supervised learning or parameter fitting so that the results obtained here should hold mostly valid for newly solved structures to the extent that the distribution of functionally characterized proteins in the PDB stays the same.

By grouping the composite motifs associated with particular functions, we defined meta-composite motifs. It was demonstrated that the description based on meta-composite motifs provided us with a detailed annotation of biological processes (Figs. ,). By describing biological processes in terms of composite motifs rather than individual structures, we can abstract the pattern of interactions so that the commonality and specificity of the interactions in different contexts, such as species or pathways, for example, can be delineated. Although there are currently some limitations in this description, such as the absence of temporal relation between composite motifs or the lack of experimental structures for some possible transient complexes, these limitations may be overcome in the future by complementing meta-composite motifs with other experimental information such as gene/protein expression or interactome analyses.

In summary, we have introduced composite motifs that well describe protein functions based on the context-dependent combinations of structural patterns of binding sites, and provide a useful means to describe the atomic details of biological processes.

# Materials and Methods

## Data set

We have used all the PDB entries as of December 29, 2010 (70,231 entries). All the biological units were generated for each entry as annotated in the PDBML files , except for those with icosahedral, helical, or point symmetries (mostly viruses). For the latter, only the corresponding (icosahedral, etc.) asymmetric units were used. Entries without annotated biological units were treated as they are given. Some PDB entries contain more than one biological unit all of which were used in the present study since alternative oligomeric states may (or may not) be biologically relevant. The biological units in the PDB are defined by authors and/or software (PQS and/or PISA). In total, 197,690 subunits in 79,826 biological units contained at least one ligand binding site.

A ligand binding site of a subunit is defined as a set of at least 10 atoms in the subunit that are in contact with some atoms of a ligand within 5Å radius. In this study, ligands include non-polymers, proteins, and nucleic acids. The non-polymer ligands are those annotated as such in the PDBML files, but water molecules were discarded. The protein ligands are those annotated as "polypeptide(L)" with at least 25 amino acid residues. The nucleic acid ligands are those annotated as "polydeoxyribonucleotide," "polyribonucleotide" or "polydeoxyribonucleotide/polyribonucleotide hybrid."

## Similarity between binding site structures

To compare binding site structures, we used the GIRAF structural search and alignment program with some modifications to enable faster database search and flexible alignments (unpublished). GIRAF produces an atom-wise alignment for a pair of binding sites. After all-against-all comparisons of binding sites, elementary motifs were defined as complete-linkage clusters with a cutoff GIRAF score of 15, as in our previous studies . The cutoff value was chosen so that the largest cluster did not predominate all the other clusters due to the "phase transition" of the similarity networks . The GIRAF score is defined as $$\label{eq:girafscore}
  G(A,B) = \frac{N_{A,B}\sum_{a}w(\mathbf{x}^A_a,\mathbf{x}^B_a)}{\min\left[N_A,N_B\right]}$$ where $N_A$ and $N_B$ are the number of atoms of the binding sites $A$ and $B$ respectively, and $N_{A,B}$ is the number of aligned atom pairs. The weight $w(\mathbf{x}^A_a , \mathbf{x}^{B}_a)$ for the aligned atom pairs $\mathbf{x}^A_a$ and $\mathbf{x}^{B}_a$ ($a =
1, \cdots, N_{A,B}$) is defined as $$\label{eq:wpair}
  w(\mathbf{x}^A_a,\mathbf{x}^B_a) = \max\left[1 - d(\mathbf{x}^A_a,\mathbf{x}^B_a)/d_c, 0\right]$$ where $d(\mathbf{x}^A_a,\mathbf{x}^B_a)$ is the distance between two atoms in a superimposed coordinate system and the cutoff distance $d_c$ is set to 2.5 Å.

Clusters with less than 10 members were excluded in this study because structural similarity in small clusters may be coincidental. In fact, when there were protein pairs not detected by BLAST within a cluster, the fraction of such pairs was 79% on average for clusters with less than 10 members while that for clusters with at least 10 members was 36%. Although motifs shared between remote homologs or non-homologs may provide interesting examples, we expect many of them are not biologically relevant.

The raw GIRAF score largely depends on the size of binding sites. Therefore, when comparing binding site similarity with function similarity, we used a normalized similarity measure so that binding sites of varying sizes can be compared on the same scale. Let $N_A$, $N_B$ and $N_{A,B}$ be defined as above, then the normalized similarity $S(A,B)$ between the binding sites $A$ and $B$ is defined as $$\label{eq:simif} S(A,B) = 100 \times \frac{2 N_{A,B}}{N_A + N_B}~~(\%).$$

## Functions defined by UniProt keywords

For each subunit in the data set, the corresponding UniProt accession identifier was obtained from the struct_ref category of the PDBML file. In total, 186,791 subunits with at least 1 ligand binding site in the PDB were annotated by UniProt. For thus identified UniProt entries, their keywords were extracted. The UniProt keywords are a set of controlled vocabulary to describe the properties of proteins and they are organized in a hierarchical order. In most cases, these keywords are manually assigned by curators, hence they are expected to be more reliable. This is in contrast to the Gene Ontology annotations (http://geneontology.org) for the PDB which are mostly automatically annotated and are likely to contain a large number of erroneous annotations.

For each subunit, all the keywords annotated either explicitly or implicitly via the keyword hierarchy, were extracted except for those belonging to the Technical term, Disease, or Domain categories. We define the function of a subunit as the set of the UniProt keywords associated with it. In other words, two subunits whose associated sets of keywords are exactly identical are defined to have the same function. In total, 7,991 UniProt functions were defined. The similarity between two UniProt functions are defined by the Jaccard index between the sets of keywords associated with the functions (see below, Eq. )

## Similarity between two sets

The similarity measures for composite motifs, functions or meta motifs are based on comparison between two sets. Given the sets $A$ and $B$, their similarity is defined by the Jaccard index $J(A,B)$: $$\label{eq:jac}
  J(A,B) = 100\times \frac{|A \cap B|}{|A \cup B|}~~(\%).$$ For a given composite motif, function, meta-composite motif or meta-sequence motif, the set consists of elementary motifs, UniProt keywords, composite motifs, or sequence clusters, respectively.

## Sequence clusters

To define meta-sequence motifs, complete-linkage clustering was applied to the result of an all-against-all BLAST comparison with two different criteria. In one case, all pairs of sequences in a cluster must have BLAST E-value of at most 0.05. This resulted in 3,327 clusters with at least 10 members. These clusters are referred to as type-1 sequence clusters. In the other case, all pairs of sequences in a cluster must have 100% sequence identity as well as E-value of at most 0.05. This resulted in 4,594 clusters with at least 10 members, which are referred to as type-2 sequence clusters. When BLAST produces more than one alignment for a pair of sequences, the alignments were integrated into one alignment as long as they were mutually consistent.

## Comparison between motif similarity and function similarity

Although we did not use any representative set for defining elementary and composite motifs based on sequence similarity, we did use representatives of motifs and sequences when their similarities were compared with function similarity (c.f., Figs. and C) in order to reduce the bias due to different sizes of clusters. For composite motifs, a representative was randomly selected from each composite motif. For binding sites, a representative was randomly selected from each elementary motif. For protein sequences, a representative was randomly selected from each type-2 sequence cluster. Average function similarities for a given range of motif, binding site or sequence similarity (Fig. ) were calculated for 10 sets of randomly selected representatives and the standard deviations of the average function similarity are shown as error bars. Only those points with at least 500 (50 for nucleic acid binding sites) samples on average are shown in Figs. A,B.

For meta-composite and meta-sequence motifs, 50 % of the all observed pairs of meta motifs were randomly selected and the average function similarity was calculated. This procedure was iterated 10 times, and data points with at least 10 samples are reported with the standard deviation of the average values in Fig. C.

We have confirmed that selecting different random sets of representatives in all the above cases did not alter the results significantly.

## Downloadable data

The results of all-against-all comparison of binding sites and classifications are made available for download at http://pdbj.org/giraf/cmotif/.

# Acknowledgments

We thank Toshiaki Katayama and Hideki Hatanaka for helping with uploading data to TogoDB.

# Figure Legends


abstract: Today's science provides quite a lean picture of time as a mere geometric evolution parameter. I argue that time is much richer. In particular, I argue that besides the geometric time, there is creative time, when objective chance events happen. The existence of the latter follows straight from the existence of free-will. Following the french philosopher Lequyer, I argue that free-will is a prerequisite for the possibility to have rational argumentations, hence can't be denied. Consequently, science can't deny the existence of creative time and thus that time really passes.
author: Nicolas Gisin
date: 2024-10-03
title: Time Really Passes, Science Can't Deny That

# Introduction

What is free-will for a physicist? This is a very personal question. Most physicists pretend they don't care, that it is not important to them, at least not in their professional life. But if pressed during some evening free discussions, after a few beers, surprising answers come out. Everything from "obviously I enjoy free-will" to "obviously I don't have any free-will" can be heard. Similarly, questions about time lead to vastly different, though general quite lean discussions: "Time is a mere evolution parameter", "Time is geometrical" are standard claims that illustrate how poorly today's physics understands time. Consequently, a theory of quantum gravity that will have to incorporate time in a much more subtle and rich way will remain a dream as long as we don't elaborate deeper notions of time.

I like to argue that some relevant aspect of time is not independent of free-will and that free-will is necessary for rational thinking, hence for science. Consequently, this aspect of time, that I'll name creative time - or Heraclitus-time - is necessary for science. For different arguments in favor of the passage of time, see, e.g., .

The identification of time with (classical) clocks is likely to be misleading (sorry Einstein). Clocks do not describe our internal feeling of the passage of time, nor the objective chance events that characterize disruptive times - the creative time - when something beyond the mere unfolding of a symmetry happens. Indeed, clocks describe only one aspect of time, the geometric, boring, Parmenides-time.

But let's start from the beginning. Before thinking of time and even before physics and philosophy, we need the possibility to decide what we'll consider as correct statements that we trust and believe and which statements we don't trust and thus don't buy. Hence:
Free-Will comes first, in the logical order; and all the rest follows from this premise.
Free-will is the possibility to choose between several possible futures, the possibility to choose what to believe and what to do (and thus what not to believe and not to do). This is in tension with scientific determinism[^1], according to which, all of today's facts were necessary given the past and the laws of nature. Notice that the past could be yesterday or the big-bang billions of years ago. Indeed, according to scientific determinism, nothing truly new ever happens, everything was set and determined at the big-bang[^2]. This is the view today's physics offers and I always found it amazing that many people, including clever people, do really believe in this . Time would merely be an enormous illusion, nothing but a parameter labeling an extraordinary unraveling of some pre-existing initial (or final) conditions, i.e. the unfolding of some symmetry. What is the explanatory power of such a view? What is the explanatory power of the claim that everything was set at the beginning - including our present day feelings about free-will - and that there is nothing more to add because there is no possibility to add anything. Clearly, I am not a compatibilist , i.e. not among those who believe that free-will is merely the fact that we always happen to "choose" what was already pre-determined to occur, hence that nothing goes against our apparently free choices[^3]. I strongly believe that we truly make choices among several possible futures.

Before elaborating on all this, let me summarize my argument. The following sections do then develop the successive points of my reasoning.

# The logic of the argument

1.  Free-Will comes first in the logical order. Indeed, without free-will there is no way to make sense of anything, no way to decide which arguments to buy and which to reject. Hence, there would be no rational thinking and no science. In particular, there would be no understanding.

2.  Since free-will is the possibility to choose between several possible futures, point 1 implies that the world is not entirely deterministic.

3.  Non-determinism implies that time really exists and really passes: today there are facts that were not necessary yesterday[^4], i.e. the future is open.

4.  In addition to the geometrical time, there is also creative time. One may like to call the first one Parmenides-time, and the second concept of time Heraclitus-time . Both exist.

5.  The tension between free-will and creative time on one side and scientific determinism on the other side dissolves once one realizes that the so-called real numbers are not really real: there is no infinite amount of information in any finite space volume, hence initial conditions and parameters defining evolution laws are not ultimately defined, i.e. the real numbers that theories use as inital conditions and parameters are not physically real. Hence, neither Newtonian, nor relativity, nor quantum physics are ultimately deterministic.

6.  Consequently, neither philosophy nor science nor any rational argument can ever disprove the existence of free-will, hence of the passage of time.

# Free-Will comes first, free-will as a prerequisite for understanding and for science

As already mentioned in the introduction, free-will comes first. Indeed, free-will is the possibility to choose between several possible futures, like the possibility to choose what to believe and what to do, hence also to choose what not to believe and not to do.

Accordingly, without free-will one could not distinguish truth from false, one could not choose between different views. For example, how could one decide between creationism and Darwinism, if we could not use our free-will to choose among these possibilities? Without free-will all supporters of any opinion would be equally determined (programmed) to believe in their views.

In summary, without free-will there would be no way to make sense of anything, there would be no rational thinking and no science. In particular, there would be no understanding. Furthermore, without free-will one could not decide when and how to test scientific theories. Hence, one could not falsify theories and science, in the sense of Popper , would be impossible.

I was very pleased to learn that my basic intuition, expressed above, was shared and anticipated by a poorly known French philosopher, Jules Lequyer in the 19th century, who wanted to simultaneously validate Science and free-will . As Lequyer emphasized: "without free-will the certainty of scientific truths would become illusory". And (my addition) the consistency of rational arguments would equally become illusory. Lequyer continues: "Instead of asking whether free-will is certain, let's realize that certainty requires free-will"[^5].

Lequyer also emphasized that free-will doesn't create any new possibilities, it only makes some pre-existing potentialities become actual, a view very reminiscent of Heisenberg's interpretation of quantum theory. However, Lequyer continues, free-will is also the rejection of chance. For Lequyer - and for me - our acts of free-will are beginnings of chains of consequences. Hence, the future is open, determinism is wrong; a point on which I'll elaborate in the next two sections.

Lequyer didn't publish anything. But, fortunately, had an enormous influence on another French philosopher, a close friend, Charles Renouvier who wrote about Lequyer's ideas and published some of Lequyer's notes . In turn, Renouvier had a great influence on the famous American philosopher and psychologist William James who is considered as one of the most influential American psychologists. William James wrote "After reading Renouvier, my first act of free-will shall be to believe in free-will". This may sound bizarre, but, in fact, is perfectly coherent: once one realizes that everthing rests on free-will, then one acts accordingly.

# Hence, the World is not deterministic. Reconciling Free-Will with scientific determinism

The existence of genuine free-will, i.e. the possibility to choose among several possible futures, naturally implies that the world is not entirely deterministic. In other worlds, today there are facts that were not necessary, i.e. facts that were not predetermined from yesterday, and even less from the big-bang.

Recall that according to scientific determinism everything was set at the beginning, let's say at the big-bang, and since then everything merely unfolds by necessity, without any possible choice. Philosophers include in the initial state not only the physical state of the universe, but possibly also the character of humans - and living beings. Hence, let's recall that according to physical determinism everything is fully determined by the initial state of all the atoms and quanta at any time (or time-like hypersurface) and the laws of physics. For example, given the state of the universe a nanosecond after the big-bang, everything that ever happened and will ever happen - including the characters, desires and reasons of all humans - was entirely determined by this initial condition. In other words, nothing truly new happens, as everything was already necessary a nanosecond after the big-bang.

But how can one reconcile ideas about free-will such as summarized in the previous sections with scientific determinism? Or even with quantum randomness? This difficulty led many philosophers and scientists to doubt the very existence of free-will. These so-called compatibilist changed the definition of free-will in order to make it compatible with determinism . Free-will, they argue, is merely the fact that we are determined to never choose anything that doesn't necessary happen. Nevertheless, compatibilists argue, we have the feeling that our "necessary choices" are free. This sounds to me like a game of words, some desperate tentative to save our inner feeling of free-will and scientific determinism. But, as Lequyer anticipated, free-will comes first, hence there is no way to rationally argue against its existence, for rational arguing requires that one can freely buy or not buy the argument: genuine compatibilists must freely decide to buy the compatibilists' argument, hence compatibilists must enjoy free-will in Lequyer's sense. Moreover, and this is my main point, scientific determinism is wrong, hence there is no need to squeeze free-will in a deterministic world-view.

Let me emphasize that since free-will comes first, i.e. the possibility to choose between several possible futures comes first, and since this is incompatible with scientific determinism, the latter is necessarily wrong: the future has to be open, as we show in the next section.

Before explaining why physics, including classical Newtonian physics, is not deterministic, let me address first two related questions: When do random (undetermined) events happen? What triggers random events?

Already when I was a high school student, long before thinking seriously about free-will, the concept of randomness and indeterminism puzzled me a lot . When can a random event happen? What triggers its occurrence? If randomness is only a characteristic of long sequences, as my teachers told me, then what characterizes individual random events? What is the probability of a singular event? Aren't long sequences merely the accumulation of individual events[^6]?

The only interesting answer to the question "when do random events happen?" I could find was given by yet another 19th century French philosopher (there is no way to escape from one's cultural environment), Antoine A. Cournot . His idea was that chance happens when causal chains meet. This is a nice idea, illustrated, e.g., by quantum chance which happens when a quantum system encounters a measuring device[^7].

This idea can be illustrated by everyday chance events. Imagine that two persons, Alice and Bob meet up by chance in the street (taken from ). This might happen, for example, because Alice was going to the restaurant further down the same street and Bob to see a friend who lives in the next street. From the moment they decide to go on foot, by the shortest possible path, to the restaurant for Alice and to see his friend for Bob, their meeting was predictable. This is an example of two causal chains of events, the paths followed by Alice and Bob, which cross one another and thus produce what looks like a chance encounter to each of them. But that encounter was predictable for someone with a sufficiently global view. The apparently chance-like nature of the meeting was thus only due to ignorance: Bob did not know where Alice was going, and conversely. But what was the situation before Alice decided to go to the restaurant? If we agree that she enjoys the benefits of free-will, then before she made this decision, the meeting was truly unpredictable. True chance is like this. True chance does not therefore have a cause in the same sense as events in a deterministic world. A result subject to true chance is not predetermined in any way. But we need to qualify this assertion, because a truly chance like event may have a cause. It is just that this cause does not determine the result, only the probabilities of a range of different possible results are determined. In other words, it is only the propensity of a certain event to be realised that is actually predetermined, not which event obtains .

Let's have a more physicist look at that. First, consider two colliding classical particles, see Fig. . Next, consider a unitary quantum evolution in an arbitrary Hilbert space, see Fig. . Look for a while at the latter one; it is especially boring, nothing happens, it is just a symmetry that displays itself. Possibly the symmetry is complex and the Hilbert space very large, but frankly, nothing happens as the equivalence between the Schrödinger and the Heisenberg pictures clearly demonstrates. Likewise, for a bunch of classical harmonic oscillators nothing happens. Somehow, there is no time (or only the boring geometric time that merely labels the evolution). Similarly, as long as the classical particles of Fig. merely move straight at a constant speed, nothing happens: in another reference frame they are at rest. It is only when the classical particles collide, or when the quantum system meets a measuring apparatus, that something happens, as Cournot claimed.

But one may object that in phase space the point that represents the 2 particles doesn't meet anything. In phase space, there is no collision, as collisions require at least two objects and in phase space there is only one object, i.e. one point. Moreover, the collision in real space and the consequence of that collision is already entirely determined by the initial conditions: in phase space it's only a symplectic symmetry that displays itself.

And even if one assumes that each particle is initially "independent", whatever that could mean, after colliding the 2 particles get correlated. Hence, for Cournot's idea to work, one would need a "correlation sink". This is a bit similar to the collapse postulate of quantum theory which breaks correlations, i.e. resets independence (separability).

In summary, Cournot's idea is attractive, but not entirely satisfactory; it doesn't seem to fit with scientific determinism. It took me a very long time to realize what is wrong with that claim.

# Real numbers are not really real: Mathematical Real Numbers are Physical Random Numbers

Consider a finite volume of space, e.g. a one millimeter radius ball containing finitely many particles. Can this finite volume of space hold infinitely many bits of information? Classical and quantum theories answer is a clear "yes". But why should we buy this assertion? The idea that a finite volume of space can hold but a finite amount of information is quite intuitive. However, theoretical physics uses real numbers (and complex numbers, but let's concentrate on the reals, this suffices for my argument). Hence the question: are so-called real numbers really real? Are they physically real?

For sure, it is not because Descartes (yet another French philosopher, but this time a well-known one) named the so-called real numbers "real" that they are really real.

Actually, the idea that real numbers are truly real is absurd: a single real number contains an infinite number of bits and could thus, for example, contain all the answers to all questions one could possibly formulate in any human language . Indeed, there are only finitely many languages, each with finitely many letters or symbols, hence there are only countably many sequences of letters. Most of them don't make any sense, but one could enumerate all sequences of letters as successive bits of one real number $0.b_1b_2b_3...b_n...$, first the sequences of length 1, next of length 2 and so on. The first bit after each sequence tells whether the sequence corresponds to a binary question and, if so, the following bit provides the answer. Such a single real number would contain an infinite amount of information, in particular, as said, it would contain the answer to all possible questions one can formulate in any human language. No doubt, real numbers are true monsters!

Moreover, almost all so-called real numbers are uncomputable. Indeed, there are only countably many computer programs, hence real numbers are uncomputable with probability one. In other words, almost all real numbers are random in the sense that their sequences of digits (or bits) are random. Let me emphasize that they are as random as the outcome of measurements on half a singlet[^8]. And these random numbers (a better name for "real" numbers) should be at the basis of scientific determinism? Come on, that's just not serious!
Imagine that at school you would have learned to name the so-called *real numbers* using the more appropriate terminology of *random numbers*. Would you believe that these numbers are at the basis of scientific determinism? To name "random numbers" "real numbers" is the greatest scam and trickery of science; it is also a great source of confusion in the philosophy of science.
Note that not all real numbers are random. Some, but only countably many, are computable, like all rational numbers and numbers like $\pi$ and $\sqrt{2}$. Actually, all numbers one may explicitly encounter are computable, i.e. are exceptional.

The use of real numbers in physics, and other sciences, is an extremely efficient and useful idealization, e.g. to allow for differential equations. But one should not make the confusion of believing that this idealization implies that nature is deterministic. A deterministic theoretical model of physics doesn't imply that nature is deterministic. Again, real numbers are extremely useful to do theoretical physics and calculations, but they are not physically real.

The fact that so-called real numbers have in fact random digits, after the few first ones, has especially important consequences in chaotic dynamical systems. After a pretty short time, the future evolution would depend on the thousandth digit of the initial condition. But that digit doesn't really exist[^9]. Consequently, the future of classical chaotic systems is open and Newtonian dynamics is not deterministic. Actually most classical systems are chaotic, at least the interesting ones, i.e. all those that are not equivalent to a bunch of harmonic oscillators. Hence, classical mechanics is not deterministic, contrary to standard claims and widely held beliefs.

Note that the non-deterministic nature of physics may leave room for emerging phenomena, like e.g. phenomena that could produce top-down causes, in contrast to the usual down-top causes we are used to in physics . A well-known example of a set of phenomena that emerges from classical mechanics is thermodynamics which can be deduced in the so-called thermodynamical limit. But, rather than going to infinite systems, it suffices to merely understand that classical mechanics is not ultimately deterministic, neither in the initial condition, nor in the set of boundary conditions and potentials required to define the evolution equations.

What about quantum theory? Well, if one accepts that the measurement problem is a real physics problem - as I do, then this theory is also clearly not deterministic . If, on the contrary, one believes in some form of a many worlds view, then the details of the enormously entangled wave function of the Universe depends again on infinitesimal details, as in classical chaotic systems. Note that although quantum dynamics has no hyper-sensitivity to initial conditions, it shares with classical chaotic systems hyper-sensitivity to the parameters that characterize that dynamics, e.g. the Hamiltonian. Furthermore, open quantum systems recover classical trajectories also in the case of chaotic systems, see Fig. . Hence, quantum dynamics is not deterministic. Finally, Bohmian quantum mechanics is again hyper-sensitive to the initial condition of the positions of the Bohmian particles; hence, like chaotic classical systems, Bohmian mechanics is not deterministic.

Admittedly, one may object that now we have an analog of the measurement problem in classical physics, as it is unclear when and how the non-existing digits necessary to define the future of chaotic systems get determined. This is correct and, in my opinion, inevitable. First, because free-will comes first, next because mathematical real numbers are physical random numbers. Finally, because physics - and science in general - is the human activity aiming at describing and understanding how Nature does it. For this purpose one needs to describe also how humans interact with nature, how we question nature . Including the observer inside the description results, at best, in a tautology without any possible understanding: there would result no way to freely decide which description provides explanations, which argument to buy or not to buy.

To summarize this section, claiming that classical mechanics is deterministic, or that quantum theory implies a many-world view, is like elevating "real" numbers, the determinism of Newton's equations and the linearity of the Schrödinger equation, to some sort of ultimate religious truth. It is confusing mathematics with physics. It is a common but profound epistemological mistake, see Fig. .

# Hence, Time really passes. Geometric-boring time versus creative time

So far we saw that free-will comes first in the logical order, hence all its consequences are necessary. In particular one can't argue rationally against free-will and its natural consequence, namely that time really passes. We also saw that this is not in contradiction with any scientific fact. Actually, quite the opposite, it is in accordance with the natural assumption that no finite region of space can contain more than a finite amount of information. The widely held faith in scientific determinism is nothing but excessive scientism.

This can be summarized with the simple chain of implications:
*Free-Will* $\Rightarrow$ *Non-Determinism* $\Rightarrow$ *Time Really Passes*
Let us look closer at the implications for time. There is no doubt that time as an evolution parameter exists. To get convinced it suffices to look at a bunch of classical harmonic oscillators (like classical clocks), or the unitary evolution of a closed quantum system, or at the inertial motion of a classical particle as in Fig. . This time is the boring time, the time when nothing truly new happens, the time when things merely are, time when what matters is *being*, i.e. Parmenides-time. One could also name this Einstein's time[^10]. But let's look at the collision between the two particles of Fig. . The detail of the consequences of such a collision depends on non-existing infinitesimal digits, i.e. on mathematically real but physically random numbers. To get convinced just imagine a series of such collisions, this leads to chaos; hence each collision is the place of some indeterminism, that is of some creative time, time when what matters is *change*. Hence we call this creative time Heraclitus-time . This creative time is extraordinarily poorly understood by today's science, in particular by today's physics. This doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it is not important. On the contrary, it means that there are huge and fascinating open problems in front of us, scientists, physicists and philosophers.

Notice that this is closely related to Cournot's idea that random events happen when independent causal chains meet, e.g. when two classical particles meet. The two particles are independent, at least not fully correlated, because their initial conditions are not fully determined. And their future, after the collision, is not predetermined, but contains a bit of chance.

Similarly, quantum chance happens when a quantum system meets a measurement apparatus, as described by standard textbooks. Admittedly, we don't know what a measurement apparatus is, i.e. we don't know which configurations of atoms constitute a measurement apparatus. This is the so-called quantum measurement problem. According to what we saw, there is a similar problem in classical mechanics: despite the indeterminism in the initial conditions and evolution parameters, things get determined as time passes (as discussed near the end of the previous section).

# Conclusion

Neither philosophy nor science can ever disprove the existence of free-will. Indeed, free-will is a prerequisite for rational thinking and for understanding, as emphasized by Jules Lequyer. Consequently, neither philosophy nor science can ever disprove that time really passes. Indeed, the fact that time really passes is a necessary consequence of the existence of free-will.

The fact that today's science - including classical Newtonian mechanics - is not deterministic may come as a huge surprise to many readers (including the myself of 20 years ago). Indeed, the fact that Descartes named *real* numbers that are actually physically *random* had enormous consequences. This together with the tendency of many scientists to elevate their findings to some sort of quasi-religious ultimate truth - i.e. scientism - lead to great confusion, as illustrated by Laplace famous claim about determinism and by believers in some form of the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics, based respectively on the determinism of Newton's equation and on the linearity of Schödinger's equation.

Once one realizes that science is not entirely deterministic, though it clearly contains deterministic causal chains, one faces formidable opportunities. This might seem frightening, though I always prefer challenges and open problems to the claim that everything is solved.

Non-determinism implies that time really passes, most likely at the junction of causal chains, i.e. when creative time is at work. This leaves room for emerging phenomena, like thermodynamics of finite systems. It may also leave room for top-down causality: the initial indeterminism must become determined before indeterminism hits large scale, much in the spirit of quantum measurements.

As a side conclusion, note that robots based on digital electronics will never leave room for free-will, hence the central thesis of hard artificial intelligence (the claim that enough sophisticated robots will automatically become conscious and human-like) is fundamentally wrong.

So, am I a dualist? Possibly, though it depends what is meant by that. For sure I am not a materialist. Note that today's physics already includes systems that are not material in the sense that they have no mass, like electro-magnetic radiation, light and photons. What about physicalism? If this means that everything can be described and understand by today's physics, then physicalism is trivially wrong, as today's theories describe at best 5% of the content of the universe. More interestingly, if physicalism means that everything can be understood using the tools of physics, then I adhere to this view, though the fact that free-will comes first implies that physics can make endless progress, but without ever reaching a final point. We will understand much more about time and about free-will, though we'll never get a full rational description and understanding of free-will. Just imagine this debate a century ago. How naive anyone claiming at that time that physics provides a fairly complete description of nature would appear today. Similarly, for anyone making today similar claims.

Let me make a last comment, a bit off-track. Free-will is often analyzed in a context involving human responsibility, "How could we be responsible for our actions if we don't enjoy free-will?". There is another side to this aspect of the free-will question: "How could we prevent humans from destroying humanity if we claim we are nothing more than sophisticated robots?", and "How could one argue that human life has some superior value if we pretend we are nothing but sophisticated robots?".

# Acknowledgment

This work profited from numerous discussions, mostly with myself over many decades during long and pleasant walks. I should also thank my old friend Jean-Claude Zambrini for introducing me to Cournot's idea, when we were both students in Geneva. Thanks are due to Chris Fuchs who introduced me to Jules Lequyer and to many participants to the workshop on *Time in Physics* organized at the ETH-Zurich by Sandra Rankovic, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner.

[^1]: For physicists, scientific determinism is an extraordinarily strong view: everything is determined by the initial state of the atoms and quanta that make-up the work, nothing beyond that has any independent existence.

[^2]: Equally, one may claim that everything is set by tomorrow; a fact that illustrates that time in such a deterministic world is a mere illusion .

[^3]: Compatibilism is quite fashionable among philosophers. They argue that it is our character, reasons and power that determine our actions . But for a physicist, there is nothing like characters, reasons or power above the physical state of the atoms and quanta that make up our brain, body and all the universe. Hence, if the physical state evolves deterministically, then there is nothing left, everything is determined. In such a case the difference between a human and a laundry machine would only be a matter of complexity, nothing fundamental.

[^4]: Admittedly, I use the primitive concepts of *today* and *yesterday* to get the direction of time, but the existence of creative time is a direct consequence of non-determinism.

[^5]: Au lieu de nous demander si la liberté est une certitude, prenons conscience que la certitude a pour condition la liberté.

[^6]: A long sequence of pseudo-random bits is entirely given at once, because it is entirely determined by the initial condition, i.e. by the seed. In such a case I have no problem with the idea that the pseudo-randomness is a characteristic of the entire sequence. But what about long sequences of truly random bits, produced one after the other, let's say one per second? Each one is a little act of creation and the sequence nothing but an accumulation of individual random bits. Accordingly, randomness of truly random bits must be a characteristic of the individual events, not of the sequence . Notice that in the case of pseudo-randomness only the geometric-boring-time is relevant, but in the case of true randomness that concept of time is insufficient, as the creative-time is at work (but without any free-will).

[^7]: Note that this doesn't solve the quantum measurement problem, i.e. doesn't answer the question "which configurations of atoms constitute a measurement device?".

[^8]: That is, on a spin $\frac{1}{2}$ maximally entangled with another spin $\frac{1}{2}$.

[^9]: It's not that there is a sharp limit on the number of digits, they merely fade off.

[^10]: Einstein identified time with classical clocks, i.e. with classical harmonic oscillators. But what about clocks based on Heraclitus' creative time? i.e. clocks based on chaotic or quantum systems?