Metaphysical Questions for Physicists about Time.

Is Time for Real? How else might we account for change?

Note: this article is one of two which together form the basis for an encompassing framework, described here.

If physics is solely concerned with what actually exists within physical reality then it ought not contain expressions representing things that do not exist in physical reality.

So what does it mean when a span of time is represented in physics? The only physically extant moment within any timeline is at the present marker (for there exists no past or future in present physical space1). Models utilizing timelines are therefore not strictly describing physical reality.

If the 4th dimension of Minkowski space-time is not modeling actual physical reality, then what is it modeling? If the only physically real slice of space-time is the present frame, then what is the domain within which all other frames exist? All other frames are either within past or future. Where do we find past and future existing?

One possibility jumps to mind. Past and future are routinely contemplated by the conscious mind. This is (afaict) the only domain within which these realms of time can be found. Are representations of non-present time ultimately referring to the domain of mind? Where else might they be found?

In Einstein’s e=mc² time is represented as a velocity. This poses a slightly different problem than the difficulties described above. Distance over time is still not something that can be packed into present time — therefore it too is not (strictly speaking) a precise representation of what actually happens in existing physical reality.

But if the universe is considered to be a body of information, is it reasonable to consider the speed of light c to be processor speed? If information can travel no faster than light2 — is this not the clock-speed of the universe?

Can we get any sense of the structure of this cosmic CPU? Physical space is distributed over vast distances. Processor speed need not be accounted for by a single clock since distributed networks can achieve high rates of parallel processing given a large number of lesser processing nodes. Can we entertain the possibility that the physical universe is built upon a distributed network?

If the universe is processed by a distributed network then what are its processing nodes? The mind jumps to mind again. Are there any more likely candidates? Why should we not consider nodes of consciousness to be the information processors of the universe? After all, conscious minds function entirely as information processors. They also have the virtue of actually existing as a feature of physical reality.3

The image arises of a universe wherein physical matter is processed by consciousness. Consciousness therefore becomes the agent of change — which (by virtue of the law of inertia) propagates itself throughout the cosmos.

If earth-life were completely unique and alone in the universe then the rest of the cosmos would contain no other forms of conscious life. What are the chances of this being the case? Although conclusive evidence of life elsewhere has yet to be detected, just the probabilities alone suggest life is a common feature throughout the universe. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume this universe to be populated by many islands of conscious being.

If the cosmos is teeming with conscious life then why are we not receiving intelligible messages from other regions of interstellar space? But wait a second— how do we know that we’re not? If lightspeed c is the rate of universal processing and the cosmic CPU is a distributed network of consciousness — can we reasonably speculate that light itself is an information stream between nodes of consciousness? Our inability to understand what light is saying doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t saying anything.

The presence of light may not prove the presence of conscious life — but it may indicate life. The light emitted by fireflies, jellyfish, LCD screens and electric lamps - all provide evidence of life. How about the “light in your eyes”? This may sound absurd at first glance but its actually the case that all living organisms do emit electromagnetic fields…most of them outside the range of visible light. But in this experiment it was demonstrated that humans also emit very low levels of visible light — mostly from the region of the face. Apparently it’s also the case that biophotons have been observed within the brain and nervous system.

Why should we be confident that stars themselves are not conscious beings?

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

― Max Planck

No complete model of the universe can omit the presence of mind and consciousness. Is it possible that within the existing mathematics of physics we have already (and unwittingly) modeled some aspect of consciousness in our representations of time? Does Einstein’s c also stand for consciousness? Are light and consciousness inextricably linked phenomena? Those of us who have practiced meditation and/or studied sacred texts might be inclined to believe yes.

Taking this line of thinking as far as possible suggests some fascinating (and mindbending) possibilities. Returning to e=mc²: if c represents the distributed processing speed of all existing conscious entities within a frame, then what does this suggest about mass and energy?

Considering the universe as a whole: m represents the weight of matter within the universe. Does this imply that energy is a product of the conscious network interacting with matter?

With a little algebra we find it’s also the case that c²=e/m. What does this tell us about the nature of consciousness? Does this suggest that the conscious network consists of energy subdued by the weight of matter? Is it reasonable to suggest that all conscious beings can be thought of as energy distributed within matter?

And what of m=e/c²? Is the present mass of the universe determined by the total universal energy as distributed among its network of conscious beings?

It’s not intended here to claim these ideas are true — only that they are interesting and worthy of discussion. The realm of the unknown makes up a far greater portion of reality than that of the known. To omit it entirely from consideration is to hobble scientific inquiry. With some careful thought it may be possible to infer a plausible model - particularly if we discover a multiplicity of analogs to the known.

Can we entertain the possibility that physics already implies a partially verifiable metaphysics? One which may help us to heal the unnecessary divisions between materialistic science and the spiritual impulse? Can we find a deeper meaning within our rationality and perhaps bring some clarity to our mysticism?

If we are to successfully heal the festering divisions of the world we cannot reasonably believe that whatever particular paradigm each of us presently adheres to will prevail over all others. We’re going to have to find some way for all of our paradigms to be embraced within some meta-perspective. Such an integral vision will be needed to avoid falling into our old patterns — the terrible historical nightmares of hatred, violence, environmental and political destruction. Everyone knows we are once again at this precipice — and that we cannot afford to revert to previous versions of human nature. Additionally, it will not be long before we all have to contend with an artificial intelligence far greater than our own. So we had better get our act together, and soon.

A good place to start this integration process is within the fields that contain the most earnest and serious thinkers. Philosophers, scientists, poets and spiritualists each have important things to say. But none so important that any might be considered the final word. After all — existence is a mystery and we are all humble and essentially ignorant creatures within the grand scheme of things.

Can we envision a world wherein scientists seek to integrate their theories with Max Planck’s statements regarding consciousness? Can we develop an effective vision to restore humanity to its symbiotic role within the natural world — or are we doomed to be the destroyers of earth-life? Can thinkers from all backgrounds consider new ideas without getting threatened if those ideas don’t jibe with their existing beliefs? For sometimes even an incorrect idea may eventually lead to a revelation once it takes up residence in a new mind.

Here’s hoping (wishfully? desperately?) that we might all admit the limitations of our perspectives and develop a new inclusive vision of reality together, while there’s still Time.

Your support is greatly appreciated!

PayPal address: taijireality atsign gmail dot com

Footnotes:

1 If past and future were somehow part of the physical universe there would be a confusion of events — no succession or continuity would be possible.

2 Ignoring quantum entanglement for the time being.

3 Whether or not mind is wholly an artifact of physical matter it certainly does exist as a real factor in actual present physical reality. It might therefore be said that mind is more real than past or future.