Physical time and Time as we experience it

A
CLEFT
BETWEEN
the
future
and
the
past
the
breath
between
tomorrow
and
today
the
lonely
isle
or
sandy,
sea-locked
cay
surrounded,
compassed
by
the
ocean
vast
upon
whose
shore
my
soul
is
stranded,
cast,
marooned
and
shipwrecked,
spirit
washed
away
that
bounded
by
horizon
of
the
day
until
I
spied
the
telltale
sail
at
last
a
phrase’
turn
that
awaits
its
crowning
rhyme
causality
is
intimate
relating
the
watches-of-the-night-denoting
chime
to
signal
that
the
darkness
is
abating
for
all
good
things
will
come
to
me
in
time
and
I
can
make
the
flowers
grow
by
waiting

—
Max
Leyf

The
way
physicists
think
about
time
includes
built-in
contradictions.
No
one
denies
this,
and
there
is
an
extensive
literature
in
the
philosophy
of
physics,
with
little
agreement.

The
paradox
most
commonly
addressed
is
that
the
thermodynamic
“arrow
of
time”
is
nowhere
to
be
found
in
the
fundamental
equations
of
physics.
Thermodynamics
is
supposed
to
be
a
derived
science,
based
on
the
microscopic
equations
of
physics,
which
are
fundamental.
But
the
fundamental
equations
are
exactly
the
same
going
forward
or
backward
in
time,
while
the
derived
equations
(about
increasing
entropy)
tell
of
irreversible
change
happening
in
one
time
direction.

We
experience
past
and
future
as
different.
We
have
a
sense
of
agency
about
the
future,
while
we
regard
the
past
as
set
in
stone.
Where
does
the
asymmetry
come
from?
If
the
equations
of
particle
physics
are
indeed
the
root
of
all
reality,
why,
in
our
experience,
is
the
forward
direction
of
time
so
different
from
the
backward
direction?

But
there
is
a
bigger
paradox,
addressed
only
obliquely,
if
at
all,
by
physicists.
The
most
salient
feature
of
our
experience
of
time
is
that
there
is
a
“now”,
distinguished
from
all
other
times.
Essential
to
our
conscious
experience
is
a
sense
of
moving
through
time.
But
this
“now”
is
nowhere
to
be
found,
in
all
the
equations
and
laws
of
physics.

“The
Moving
Finger
writes;
and,
having
writ,
Moves
on:
nor
all
thy
Piety
nor
Wit
Shall
lure
it
back
to
cancel
half
a
Line,
Nor
all
thy
Tears
wash
out
a
Word
of
it.”
― Omar
Khayyám (tr
Edward
Fitzgerald)

You
could
pore
through
all
the
equations
of
physics
—
equations
that
work
so
well
to
describe
everything
from
particles
in
a
high-energy
collider
to
the
motion
of
galaxies
—
all
these
equations
contain
no
idea
of
a
special
“present
moment”.
Our
subjective
experience
of
time
as
something
that
moves
has
no
place
in
Newton’s
equations
that
govern
motion,
and
this
remains
true
in
quantum
physics.

The
sense
of
a
moving
“now”
is
so
essential
a
feature
of
our
experience
that
it
is
inseparable.
Conscious
awareness
and
the
“flow
of
time”
are
parts
of
one
concept,
or
different
ways
of
speaking
about
the
same
thing.

It
gets
worse.
Our
conviction
that
“now”
is
special
is
powerfully
reinforced
by
the
fact
that
everyone
we
know
experiences
the
same
“now”
that
we
do.
For
people
who
are
close
enough
to
interact
with
us,
their
“now”
is
the
same
as
ours
to
within
a
millionth
of
a
second,
which
is
a
time
too
short
for
our
perceptual
apparatus
to
distinguish.
Communication
at
the
speed
of
light
connects
any
human
to
any
other
within
a
few
hundredths
of
a
second,
which
is
right
at
the
threshold
of
a
time
interval
that
our
senses
might
perceive.
In
everyday
conversations,
time
lags
from
the
speed
of
sound
are
similarly
in
the
range
of
hundredths
of
a
second.

Absolute,
true,
and
mathematical
time,
of
itself,
and
from
its
own
nature,
flows
equably
without
relation
to
anything
external,
and
by
another
name
is
called
duration:
relative,
apparent,
and
common
time,
is
some
sensible
and
external
(whether
accurate
or
unequable)
measure
of
duration.
—
Isaac
Newton

Our
subjective
experience
is
of
a
moving
“now”.
Einstein
showed
us
that
the
subjectivity
of
time
is
relative,
and
he
went
further
to
opine
that
“now”
is
an
artifact
of
our
human
condition,
an
illusion
without
physical
significance.
More
recently, Julian
Barbour has
written
articles
and
an
entire
book
denying
that
time
has
any
reality.
This,
in
my
view,
is
an
extreme
perversion
of
science.
The
purpose
of
science
is
to
explain
our
experience,
to
make
it
comprehensible
and
(somewhat)
predictable.
When
science
tells
us
that
there
are
no
explanations
to
be
had
because
our
experience
is
an
illusion,
science
is
gaslighting
us.

It’s
tough
to
make
predictions,
especially
about
the
future.
—
Yogi
Berra

It
remains
true
in
quantum
mechanics
that
the
equations
themselves
are
symmetric
with
respect
to
forward
and
backward
time;
and
yet,
in
practice,
we
always
use
the
equations
of
quantum
mechanics
to
predict
the
future
from
the
past,
never
to
“retrodict”
the
past
from
the
future.
This
could
be
regarded
as
an
extra,
unstated
rule
in
the
foundations
of
quantum
physics:
The
wave
function
must
be
used
to
predict
probabilities
of
the
future,
but
never
of
the
past.
This
suggests
a
way
in
which
quantum
mechanics
might
offer
a
basis
for
a
subjective
“now”.

“Nothing
ever
happened
in
the
past;
it
happened
in
the
Now.
Nothing
will
ever
happen
in
the
future;
it
will
happen
in
the
Now.”
—
Eckhart
Tolle

Quantum
mechanics
famously
requires
“observers”
to
complete
the
theory.
For
each
observer,
observation
happens
in
the
subjective
“now”.
The
choice
of
observation
is
akin
to
our
feeling
that
we
are
free
to
direct
our
attention
as
we
wish.
It
is
by
this
choice
that
consciousness
enters
the
physical
world,
and
by
which
we
assert
our
influence
on
the
future.

Is
there
a
relationship
between
quantum
measurement
and
life
that
gives
direction
to
physical
time?

A
thought
I’ve
entertained
of
late
is
to
identify
what
we
call
“consciousness”
with
the
sense
of
a
moving
“now”.
Observation
is
the
means
by
which
consciousness
enters
the
schema
of
quantum
physics.
The
Schrödinger
equation
tells
how
probabilities
evolve
between
observations,
but
the
human
(or
animal
or
plant)
choice
of
what
to
observe
shares
with
the
equations
a
causal
role
in
bringing
the
past
forward
to
create
a
future.

We
(and
all
of
life)
participate
in
creation
by
our
presence
as
witness.
In
choosing
the
focus
of
our
attention,
we
are
participating
in
creating
the
future
each
moment.
This
is
the
physical
significance
of
the
“now”.

There
is
a
quantum
phenomenon
called
the Inverse
Zeno
Effect by
which
repeatedly
choosing
what
to
measure
can
influence
a
quantum
state
to
morph
into
a
different
state.

I
suggest
that
the
incorporation
of
consciousness
into
the
foundations
of
physics
invests
time
with
its
physical
character
—
including
causality
and
the
increase
in
entropy
—
that
separates
one-way
macroscopic
physics
from
the
time-symmetric
equations
of
fundamental
physics.

If
this
seems
too
distant
for
you
to
hang
on
to…

Background
—
if
this
is
starting
to
make
your
head
spin,
I
suggest
reviewing what
I
have
written
about
the
quantum
measurement
problem in
the
past.
More here and here.

If
you’re
at
all
interested
in
the
conceptual
replacement
of
a
physical
universe
with
a living
universe at
the
foundations
of
science,
I
recommend
reading
the
background.
This
is
the
subject
of
a book
that
I
hope
to
complete
this
year,
and
I
will
be
publishing
excerpts
on
this
ScienceBlog
as
I
write
them.

For
those
who
are
impatient,
here
is
a
much-too-condensed
summary
of
a
revolutionary
reconception
of
the
foundations
of
science.

• Quantum
  physics
  already
  contains
  a
  potential
  role
  for
  consciousness
  in
  the
  form
  of
  “the
  measurement
  problem”
  or
  “collapse
  of
  the
  wave
  function”
  (two
  names
  for
  the
  same
  thing).
• In
  the
  Princeton
  PEAR
  lab,
  Robert
  Jahn
  and
  Brenda
  Dunne
  established
  that
  mere
  thought
  can
  affect
  quantum
  probabilities
  from
  a
  distance,
  with
  no
  “physical”
  link
  between
  the
  person
  and
  the
  quantum
  system.
  (This
  finding
  was,
  on
  the
  one
  hand,
  so
  profound
  that
  it
  deserved
  a
  Nobel
  prize,
  and,
  on
  the
  other
  hand,
  so
  contrary
  to
  conventional
  physics
  that
  most
  physicists
  won’t
  even
  look
  at
  their
  experiments.)
• There
  are
  hints
  that
  it’s
  not
  unique
  to
  humans
  —
  animals
  and
  even
  plants
  can
  do
  this.
• Though
  the
  effect
  Jahn
  and
  Dunne
  found
  was
  small,
  they
  were
  working
  with
  distracted
  experimental
  subjects,
  who
  volunteered
  for
  a
  boring
  task
  and
  had
  no
  stake
  in
  the
  outcome.
  It
  is
  a
  reasonable
  extrapolation
  that
  within
  our
  bodies,
  the
  effect
  of
  intention
  on
  probabilities
  is
  much
  larger.
  We
  have
  skin
  in
  the
  game,
  and
  as
  babies,
  we
  learn
  to
  use
  our
  intention
  to
  control
  brain
  and
  body
  in
  detail.
  My
  hypothesis
  is
  that
  the
  Jahn-Dunne
  effect
  explains
  the
  fact
  that
  our
  intention
  is
  able
  to
  create
  thoughts
  in
  our
  brains
  and
  movement
  in
  our
  muscles.

What
happens
when
different
people
are
observing
the
same
system?

Our
perceptions
are
individual.
Our
“now”
is
individual
for
each
of
us,
and
Einstein
taught
us
just
how
different
time
can
be
for
different
observers.
And
yet,
there
is
a
consensus
reality.
To
a
great
extent,
I
can
speak
to
you
about
events
in
the
world
and
I
can
count
on
your
potential
to
verify
them.
It
is
(mostly)
one,
objective
universe
out
there,
and
different
observers
can
pool
their
observations
to
create
a
composite
reality.

If
physics
tells
us
that
each
observer
is
influencing
the
physical
world
by
the
choices
she
makes
in
what
to
measure
and
what
to
pay
attention
to,
our
experience
tells
us
that,
collectively,
we
are
creating
a
consensus
reality
by
communicating
and
combining
the
results
of
our
observations.

The
way
in
which
we
combine
observations
to
create
a
consensus
reality
is
an
open
question
that
science
has
glossed
over.
The
best-known
reference
to
this
question
is
from
Eugene
Wigner,
a
Nobel
laureate
and
second-generation
quantum
physicist.
He
posed
the
question
in
the
form
of
a
paradox
that
has
become
known
as
“Wigner’s
friend”.
The
point
Wigner
makes
directly
is
that
when
we
consider
the
human
brain
from
the
outside
as
a
quantum
system
that
we
can
query
with
measurements,
we
encounter
paradoxes.
The
larger
point
is
that
the
way
to
combine
information
from
different
observers
is
an
unresolved
question
in
the
foundations
of
physics.

If
you
are
still
bewildered,
this
essay
has
had
its
intended
effect.
Physicists
work
intimately
with
time
as
a
parameter,
but
don’t
understand
our
experience
of
time,
and
may
even
be
inclined
to
deny
our
experience
because
they
consider
their
equations
more
real
than
our
perceptions.
Studying
the
paradoxes
and
contradictions
in
a
theory
is
often
a
fruitful
path
toward
transcending
the
present
theory
with
a
broader,
more
encompassing
paradigm.
The
ideas
on
this
page
are
an
invitation
to
that
project.