Metaphysical Questions for Physicists about Time.
Ifphysics 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?
“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
In Einstein’s e=mc² time is represented as a rate of change (which avoids the difficulties described above). 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 when the number of processing nodes is sufficiently high. Thus it seems likely the physical universe is built upon a distributed model.
If the universe is processed by a distributed network then what are its processing nodes? Mind jumps to mind again: in the absence of any other 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
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 true? 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 this is the case 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 can be seen as evidence. The light emitted by fireflies, jellyfish and electric lamps are certainly evidence of life (as is the light in your eyes). Can we be certain that stars themselves are not conscious beings?
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?
Can we entertain the possibility that physics already implies a partially verifiable metaphysics? One which may help us to heal the brutal divisions between materialist science and ephemeral spirituality? Can we find a deeper meaning within our rationality and perhaps bring some clarity to our mysticism?
If we are to successfully bring our world together 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 is necessary to avoid falling into our old patterns — the terrible historical nightmares of hatred, violence and environmental destruction. Everyone knows we are once again at the 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.
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.
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.
