Abstract
Today’s science provides quite a lean picture of time as a mere geometric evolution parameter. I argue that time is much richer. In particular, I argue that besides the geometric time, there is creative time, when objective chance events happen. The existence of the latter follows straight from the existence of free-will. Following the French philosopher Lequyer, I argue that free-will is a prerequisite for the possibility to have rational argumentations, hence can’t be denied. Consequently, science can’t deny the existence of creative time and thus that time really passes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For physicists, scientific determinism is an extraordinarily strong view: everything is determined by the initial state of the atoms and quanta that make-up the work, nothing beyond that has any independent existence.
- 2.
Equally, one may claim that everything is set by tomorrow; a fact that illustrates that time in such a deterministic world is a mere illusion [3].
- 3.
Compatibilism is quite fashionable among philosophers. They argue that it is our character, reasons and power that determine our actions [4]. But for a physicist, there is nothing like characters, reasons or power above the physical state of the atoms and quanta that make up our brain, body and all the universe. Hence, if the physical state evolves deterministically, then there is nothing left, everything is determined. In such a case the difference between a human and a laundry machine would only be a matter of complexity, nothing fundamental.
- 4.
Admittedly, I use the primitive concepts of today and yesterday to get the direction of time, but the existence of creative time is a direct consequence of non-determinism.
- 5.
Some may believe that a computer can think rationally, possibly that computers are optimal in terms of rationality. But, even if one limits oneself to mathematics, a highly rational field, how could a computer decide to add or not the axiom of choice to the basic Zermolo-Fraenkel axioms of mathematics? Consistency doesn’t help, as both assuming the axiom of choice and assuming its negation lead to consistent sets of axioms. Hence, a choice has to be made, a choice that has consequences, hence impacts what makes sense to us. Most mathematicians accept the axiom of choice because it allows them to prove more theorems. Why not. But I reject this axiom because some of its consequences are absurd to me [6]. This is an example where free-will is necessary to make a sensible decision. Note that one’s decision may evolve over time.
- 6.
Au lieu de nous demander si la liberté est une certitude, prenons conscience que la certitude a pour condition la liberté.
- 7.
A long sequence of pseudo-random bits is entirely given at once, because it is entirely determined by the initial condition, i.e. by the seed. In such a case I have no problem with the idea that the pseudo-randomness is a characteristic of the entire sequence. But what about long sequences of truly random bits, produced one after the other, let’s say one per second? Each one is a little act of creation and the sequence nothing but an accumulation of individual random bits. Accordingly, randomness of truly random bits must be a characteristic of the individual events, not of the sequence [10]. Notice that in the case of pseudo-randomness only the geometric-boring-time is relevant, but in the case of true randomness that concept of time is insufficient, as the creative-time is at work (but without any free-will).
- 8.
Note that this doesn’t solve the quantum measurement problem, i.e. doesn’t answer the question “which configurations of atoms constitute a measurement device?”.
- 9.
That is, on a spin \(\frac{1} {2}\) maximally entangled with another spin \(\frac{1} {2}\).
- 10.
It’s not that there is a sharp limit on the number of digits, they merely fade off.
- 11.
Einstein identified time with classical clocks, i.e. with classical harmonic oscillators. But what about clocks based on Heraclitus’ creative time? i.e. clocks based on chaotic or quantum systems?
- 12.
Remember a few decades ago, when biology was claiming that genes fully determine all living beings. This was considered as a major and final finding. It was a major finding, indeed, but clearly not a final one. Today, epigenetics proves that there is much more than genes that influences living beings.
References
J. Norton, J. Philos. Stud. 13, 23–34 (2010). www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage. www.humanamente.eu/index.php/pages/36-issue13
L. Smolin, Time Reborn (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, 2013)
J. Barbour, The End of Time (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999)
R. Kane, A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005)
C.H.S. Temann, C.H. Sötemann, Heraclitus and Parmenides - An Ontic Perspective (GRIN Verlag GmbH, Munich, 2013); K. Jaspers, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plotinus, Laotzu, Nagarjuna (Mariner Books, Indianapolis, 1974)
C. Hardin, A. Taylor, A peculiar connection between the axiom of choice and predicting the future. Am. Math. Mon. 115, 91–96 (2008); A. George, A proof of induction? Philosopher’s Imprint 7–2, 1–5 (2007); J.P. Delahaye, Une folie Mathématique, Pour la Science 384, 86 (2009)
K.R. Popper, Logik der Forschung (1934); The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Hutchinson, London, 1959)
J. Lequier, Comment trouver, comment chercher une vérité première (Edition de L’Eclat, Paris, 1985); see also D.W. Viney Translation of Works of Jules Lequyer. Studies in the History of Philosophy, vol. 48 (The Edwin Mellen Press, New York, 1998); J. Grenier, La philosophie de Jules Lequier, Calligrammes, 1983 (ISBN 2 903258 30 9); J. Wahl, Jules Lequier (Editions des Trois Collines, Genève-Paris, 1948)
W. Logue, Charles Renouvier, Philosopher of Liberty (Louisiana State University Press, Louisiana, 1993)
N. Gisin, Propensities in a non-deterministic physics. Synthese 98, 287 (1991)
A. Cournot, Exposition de la théorie des chances et des probabilités, Librairie Hachette (1843). Reprinted in part in Etudes pour le Centenaire de la mort de Cournot, ed. by A. Robinet, Edition Economica (1978)
N. Gisin, Quantum Chance, Nonlocality, Teleportation and Other Quantum Marvels (Springer, Berlin, 2014)
G. Chaitin, The Labyrinth of the Continuum. Meta Math! (Vintage, New York, 2008)
G.F.R. Ellis, Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will, ed. by N. Murphy, G. Ellis, T. O’Connor (Springer, Berlin, 2009)
T.A. Brun, N. Gisin et al., Phys. Lett. A 229, 267 (1997)
E. Schrödinger, Mind and Matter (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1958)
Acknowledgements
This work profited from numerous discussions, mostly with myself over many decades during long and pleasant walks. I should also thank my old friend Jean-Claude Zambrini for introducing me to Cournot’s idea, when we were both students in Geneva. Thanks are due to Chris Fuchs who introduced me to Jules Lequyer and to many participants to the workshop on Time in Physics organized at the ETH-Zurich by Sandra Rankovic, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gisin, N. (2017). Time Really Passes, Science Can’t Deny That. In: Renner, R., Stupar, S. (eds) Time in Physics. Tutorials, Schools, and Workshops in the Mathematical Sciences . Birkhäuser, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68655-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68655-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Birkhäuser, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68654-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68655-4
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)