Skip to main content

The Forgotten Present

A Philosophical Invitation to Rethink Time and Reality and to Discover the Autogenetic Nature of Our Universe

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: On Thinking ((ONTHINKING,volume 4))

Abstract

This essay proposes a radical re-thinking of time and reality. “With Kant beyond Kant” it is argued that all theories are based on categorial foundations. These are interrelated symmetry breakings that enable, but by enabling also constrain everything that we can think thereafter. Both the enigmatic character of quantum physics (QP) and its incompatibility with general relativity theory (GRT) are rooted in our unawareness of these categorial underpinnings. Metaphorically speaking, this unawareness results in a categorial “facticity imprisonment” of our thinking. We inadvertently reduce reality to its factual footprints and time to its sequential structure. Both are correct and important aspects of time respectively reality. But they provide only a partial picture. In order to overcome the rift between the two foundational theories of modern physics, it is necessary to unearth the different categorial underpinnings of the two theories, and to develop a richer, overarching categorial framework.

Facts are just the traces of the actual taking place of reality, left behind on the co-emerging canvas of local spacetime. The actual taking place of reality occurs still in the primordial, still non-local form of time, for which the notion “timespace of the present” (TSP) is introduced. Interestingly enough, Albert Einstein already complained about the “painful, but inevitable abandonment” of the present in physics vis-à-vis Rudolf Carnap (Carnap’s intellectual bibliography. In: Schilpp PA (ed) The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. Open Court Publishing, La Salle, pp 3–84, 1963). A necessity to abandon the present exists, however, only as long as time is reduced to its linear-sequential aspect, i.e., as long as the present is erroneously reduced to a point-like now.

By recognizing the non-local TSP as the primordial form of physical time, the sequential structure of time becomes a derivative feature—and with this step a radically novel way to interpret QP and its relation to GRT become feasible. The two theories address different chrono-ontological portraits of reality. QP addresses the actual taking place of reality, i.e., the actual “coming into being” of facts, as it occurs still in the TSP. Classical and relativistic physics, instead, address already the factual portrait of time and reality.

Quantum physical reduction is the bridge from the first to the latter format of time and reality. But this can’t be understood as long as one recognizes only the second chrono-ontological portrait, the factual aspect of time and reality. There exists, however, also a transition in the opposite direction, i.e., from the factual portrait of time and reality back to their “statu nascendi” portrait. In the singularities of GRT the local spacetime fabric melts away—driven by the strong self-referentiality of gravity. In this way, quantum physical reduction and the singularities of GRT turn out to describe inverse transitions: Into and out of the local spacetime format of time and reality.

In the novel account, also our human experience of a present can be seen in a radically novel light. It no longer needs to be derogated as a subjective confabulation, distorting the correct perception of physical time. Instead, it turns out that our perception of the present is the most advanced adaptation of cognitive evolution to the actual taking place of reality—as it occurs still in the TSP. This new view is strongly supported by considering Darwinian evolution. In neurobiological terms, the experience of the present—and its twin, the phenomenon of explicit self-awareness—are the two most demanding and “costly” endeavors of the human brain. Wouldn’t they bring us to a more accurate, and, thus, more powerful appreciation of time and reality, they would have never developed in the first place or they would have, at least, been swept away by evolutionary selection pressures.

The novel conceptual framework becomes possible by unearthing the categorial foundations of our theories, i.e., by recognizing their nontrivial structure of these foundations and by appreciating their crucial role for all subsequent theorizing. For Kant the basis of his epistemological considerations was Newtonian physics. Modern physics progressed far beyond that—but hitherto it had not taken its own categorial foundations into account. Only by unearthing them, and by making them part of our theories, it will be possible to overcome the impasse of modern physics. The theory of an autogenetic universe offers the conceptual framework for that.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This was first shown in the author’s PhD thesis, von Müller, Albrecht (1983), Zeit und Logik (Time and Logic), Baur Verlag, Munich.

  2. 2.

    Often the notion of “logic” is restricted to formal rules of drawing conclusions. But this is a much stronger restriction than it seems at first glance. It excludes large parts of the way that we use natural language, in which the processes of semantic unfolding play a crucial role. Therefore, the notion of “logic” is used here in the older, Heraclitean sense. For Heraclites, logos still meant both: the most fundamental principles underlying the taking place of reality and the basic rule of thought. As we will see, the autogenetic unfolding of reality cannot be appropriately addressed without semantic unfolding. Semantically static, and therefore just formalizable, concepts are insufficient. The secret of natural language is its extremely sophisticated balance between the principle of semantic constancy—which is necessary for understanding each other and addressing the factual aspect of reality—and the principle of semantic unfolding required for addressing and re-presenting the actual unfolding of reality.

  3. 3.

    In its original version of 1913, the poem reads: “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.” Later Stein played with several modifications, e.g., by adding the initial “A” or dropping one of the repetitions. She speculated about carving the repetitions on a tree “until it went all the way around.” In Lectures in America, she commented on her own poem as follows: “When I said, A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose, and then later made that into a ring I made poetry and what did I do I caressed completely caressed and addressed a noun.” [6, p. 231].

  4. 4.

    Already in the statu nascendi portrait, the institution of coercive proof is no longer available. Its only way of being convincing is to make a convincing offer on how to think and appreciate something. Opting for this offer remains an issue of free, deliberate acceptance by those who are addressed. Precisely this holds true, in an even more radical fashion, for all forms of religious beliefs. Anything that we can formulate in a positive way or even insinuate implicitly, remains—per definition—far behind whatever it attempts to address and appreciate. Consequently, as soon as people start to impose or coerce, religion loses all of its rights. Instead, it just serves as a fig leave for manipulative efforts that are usually motivated by such mundane driving forces as power, possession, or control. Religious believe systems are completely legitimate ways of addressing the apeiron aspect of reality—but they must never confound themselves with statements about the factual aspect of reality.

  5. 5.

    Hans Primas brought this observation to my attention when he kindly commented extensively on an earlier version of this paper in a 2010 workshop on the conceptual foundations of physics that took place at the Parmenides Foundation.

  6. 6.

    Usually the notion “meta-ethics” refers to epistemological considerations about ethics. Here it is meant to indicate both, such a reflective perspective on ethics and the phenomenon that ethics starts to transcend itself by becoming convergent with enlightened self-interest.

References

  1. Kant I (1974 [1781]) Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gödel K (1931) Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38:173–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aspect A et al (1982) Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time varying analyzers. Phys Rev Lett 49:1804–1807

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. von Weizsäcker CF (1931) Ortsbestimmung eines Elektrons durch ein Mikroskop. Zeitschrift für Physik 70:114–130

    Article  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Mozart WA (1843) Ein Brief Mozarts. In: Unterhaltungsblatt Nr. 34. Beilage der Regensburger Zeitung. Without page references

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stein G (1985 [1935]) Lectures in America. Beacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hegel GWF (2004 [1821]). Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts oder Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundrisse. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hegel GWF (1986 [1837]) Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hegel GWF (2002 [1812–16]) Wissenschaft der Logik. Akademie, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  10. Prigogine I (1978 [1977]) Time, structure and fluctuations. Sci Mag 201(4358):777–785

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bénard HC (1901) Les tourbillons cellulaires dans une nappe liquide propageant de la chaleur par convection en régime permanent. Doctoral dissertation, Gauthier-Villars, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  12. Einstein A (1916) Ernst Mach. Physikalische Zeitschrift 17:101–104

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Nida-Rümelin J (2001) Ethische essays. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Albrecht von Müller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

von Müller, A. (2015). The Forgotten Present. In: von Müller, A., Filk, T. (eds) Re-Thinking Time at the Interface of Physics and Philosophy. On Thinking, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10446-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics