Julian Barbour - The End of Time - The Next Revolution in Physics

This opens up possibilities. Triangles tell no stories, they are too simple. But if the Nows are defined by, say, the arrangements of three large bodies and of many thousands of small bodies, things are different. For example, the three large bodies could form the tenth triangle from the right in Figure 1. The remaining small bodies could be arranged in such a way that they literally create the pattern of the first nine triangles from the right of the sequence. This may seem contrived, but it is possible. It is a Now in a greatly enlarged Platonia. Shown such a Now, what could we make of it? One interpretation is that the small bodies record what the large bodies have done: the Now is a time capsule, a picture of a Newtonian history. As soon as a sufficient number of bodies are present, the possibilities for creating time capsules are immense.

I believe the sole reason we believe in time is because we only ever experience the universe through the medium of a time capsule. My assumptions are:

(1) All experience we have in some instant derives from the structure in one Now.

(2) For Nows capable of self-awareness (by containing brains, etc.) the probability of being experienced is proportional to their mist intensity.

(3) The Nows at which the mist has a high intensity are time capsules (they will also possess other specific properties).

Thus, the one law of the universe that determines the mist intensity over Platonia is timeless. The Nows and the distribution of the mist are both static. The appearance of time arises solely because the mist is concentrated on time capsules, and a Now that is a time capsule is therefore much more likely to be experienced than a Now that is not. (Please remember that this is only an outline: the detailed arguments are still to come.)

Of the three assumptions, the second is the most problematic. The first and third may seem strange and implausible, but they can be made definite. If correct, their significance and meaning are clear-cut. Both could be shown to be false, but this is good, since a theory that cannot be disproved is a bad theory. The best theories make firm predictions that can be tested. The main difficulty with the second assumption is in saying what it means. We encounter, in a modified form, the difficulty that Descartes raised. It is acute.

In a Newtonian scheme, the connection between theory and experience is unambiguous. There is a path through Platonia, and all the Nows on it are realized: sentient beings within any Nows on the path do experience those Nows. In the alternative scheme, the distribution of the mist over Platonia – its intensity at each Now – is as definite as the line of the Newtonian path. The difficulty, which is deeply rooted in quantum mechanics, is how to interpret the intensity of the mist. When we get to grips with quantum mechanics, I shall explain my reasons for assuming that the mist intensity at a Now measures its probability of being experienced. Perhaps some cosmic lottery is the best way to explain this.

Each Now has a mist intensity. Suppose that all the Nows participate in a lottery, receiving numbers of tickets proportional to their mist intensities. Nows where the mist is intense get tickets galore, others very few. By assumption (1), conscious experience is always in one Now. If a Now has a special structure, it is capable of self-awareness. But is it actually self-aware? Structure in itself, no matter how intricate and ordered, cannot explain how it can be self-aware. Consciousness is the ultimate mystery.

Perhaps it is a mystery that makes some sense of the mist that covers Platonia. If there is a cosmic lottery, clearly the Nows with the most tickets will have the best chance. If a ticket belonging to a Now capable of self-awareness is drawn, this can, so to speak, ‘bring to life’ the Now. It is aware. The consciousness potentially present in Nows structured the right way is actual in those that are drawn. Two questions about this cosmic lottery may well be asked: when are the tickets drawn, and how many are drawn?

The first question is easily answered: it has no meaning. Think of the brain preserved in aspic, or the unfortunate brain-damaged patient who believes that Harold Macmillan is Prime Minister and Dwight Eisenhower is President. The structure capable of making a Now self-aware is eternal and timeless. Structure is all that counts. Self-awareness does not happen at a certain time and last for some fraction of a second. Yesterday seems to come before today because today contains records (memories) of yesterday. Nothing in the known facts is changed by imagining them hung on a ‘line of time’ – or even reversing their positions on that line. The instant is not in time, time is in the instant. We do not have to worry when the draw is made, only whether our number comes up.

The question of how many tickets are drawn is a tough one. If only one is drawn, your present Now, which does exist, must be the one and only instant realized and experienced. All your memories are then illusions in the sense that you never experienced them. That seems very hard to believe. What is more, memories are legion. If you believe you did actually experience them all, then lots of Nows have been drawn. From this it is a small step to saying that all Nows in Platonia are drawn. In quantum mechanics, this is called the many-worlds hypothesis. But then the theory seems to become vacuous: everything that can be is, no predictions appear to be made. The root of the problem is the assumption, neat and clean in itself, that each experienced instant is always tied to a single Now and that the distribution of the mist over Platonia is determined by a law indifferent to the workings of the cosmic lottery. Whether or not particular Nows are drawn has no effect on the mist intensity. The rules of the scheme make it quite impossible to say how many, if any, of your memories are real. All we know is that the present Now is real. You can see how Descartes’s dilemma is revived in such a scheme. I suspect that it is a problem we just have to live with.

The theory is still testable because only Nows with high mist intensity (and therefore high probability) are likely to be experienced, and such Nows have characteristic properties: above all, they are time capsules. We can therefore test our own experiences and see if they verify the predictions of the theory. This is something that in principle can be settled by mathematics and observations. For if physicists can determine or guess the structure of Platonia and formulate the law that determines how the mist is distributed over it, then it is simply a matter of calculation to find out where in Platonia the mist is most intense. If the mist is indeed concentrated on structures that are time capsules, the theory will make a very strong prediction – any Now that is experienced will contain structures that seem to be records of a past of that Now. It will also contain other characteristic structures.

The huge number of things that can coexist simultaneously in one Now is significant here. It means that many independent tests can be made on a single time capsule to see whether the predictions are confirmed. The laws of nature are usually tested by repeating experiments in time. If the same initial state gives the same outcome, the law is confirmed. However, for an object as richly structured as the Earth (which in any instant belongs to one of the Nows in Platonia), repeating experiments in time can be replaced by repeating them in space. As it happens, even confirming a theory by repeating experiments in time as normally understood boils down to comparing records in one Now. The precondition of all science is the existence of time capsules. All the Nows we experience are time capsules. The question is whether we can explain why this is so from first principles: can the strong impression of time emerge from timelessness? It is a logical possibility, but the real test must await mathematical advances. Unfortunately, they are not likely to be easy.