THE FLOW OF TIME - OBJECTIVE OR MINDDEPENDENT

Vesselin Petkov

(Paper presented at the XVIII World Congress of Philosophy, Brighton, England, August 1988)


Abstract

This paper has two aims. First, to show that the issue of the flow of time is directly connected to that of the dimensionality of the world: the flow of time is objective, if reality is a three dimensional world; if the world is four-dimensional, the flow of time is minddependent. And second, to show that a thorough analysis of the consequences of the special theory of relativity unambiguously proves the four-dimensionality of the world, therefore the minddependence of the flow of time as well.



It may sound paradoxical but a solution of the long-standing discussion on the meaning of time flow would have been found if the issue had been discussed in a closer connection (than is usually the case) with the consequences of the special theory of relativity. In that case it would not be possible both for the flow of time to be objective and the consequences of the special theory of relativity to be true.

To prove this thesis I shall not make use of the argument of Reichenbach [1] and Grunbaum [2] against the objectivity of time flow (i.e. against Becoming): "If there is Becoming (independently of awareness) the physicist must know it". My reason for not using it is that this argument is necessary but not sufficient. Objections might be raised that from the fact that the flow of time has not been described in physics so far, it does not follow that it lacks objectivity. To be able to judge whether the view on the objectivity of time flow is compatible with the theory of relativity, it should be emphasized that the alternative - objective or minddependent flow of time - is closely connected to another alternative - that of the dimensionality of the world (three-dimensional or four-dimensional world). Indeed, on the one hand, if the flow of time is an objective fact it follows that the present moment is objectively privileged in comparison with the remaining moments of time. The special status of the moment "now" presupposes an objectively privileged state of the present events as well, i.e. of events occurring simultaneously at that moment. The privileged state of the present events is taken to mean that they are the only existing events ; past and future events are viewed respectively as no longer and not yet existing.

On the other hand, the present (defined as the three-dimensional world at the present moment) is the very class of present events, i.e. the class of material objects existing simultaneously now. Consequently, the flow of time is objective only if reality is a three-dimensional world, i.e. only if events are objectively divided into past, present and future. Conversely, the flow of time would not be objective if events were not divided into past, present and future but had an equal existence. In that case, however, reality cannot be a three-dimensional world since the three-dimensional world is the class of present events only (the past and future events do not have the same status - they simply do not exist if the world is three-dimensional). Past, present and future events are considered equally existent in the four-dimensional spacetime (Minkowski space). Consequently, in a four-dimensional world, where events are not objectively divided into past, present, and future, the flow of time is minddependent. H. Weyl was the first who connected the flow of time with mind and consciousness in the context of special relativity:

       "The objective world simply is, it does not
        happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, 
        crawling upward along the life line of my body, does 
        a certain section of this world come to life as a fleeting
        image in space which continuously changes in time" [3]. 

This conclusion seems inevitable: on the one hand, relativity tells us that our body exists equally at all moments of our life (since all events are equally existent) but, on the other hand, we realize ourselves only at the moment "now" which shows that it is the hypothesis of our consciousness crawling along our world line that can reconcile relativity with our everyday experience.

The conclusion that the flow of time is minddependent only if reality is four-dimensional shows that Reichenbach and Grunbaum are not consistent in denying both the objectivity of time flow and the four-dimensionality of the world. Their lack of consistency is also evident from the fact that they regard the simultaneity of distant events as a matter of convention whereas an analysis of the conventionality of simultaneity by taking into account the issue of the dimensionality of the world shows that simultaneity is conventional only in a four-dimensional world.

So far the arguments put forward in favor of the four-dimensionality of the world have not provided a definite solution of this problem since they did not analyze the consequences of the special theory of relativity (the underestimated arguments put forward by Rietdijk [4], Putnam [5], and Weingard [6] are an exception). The problem of the dimensionality of the world, however, can be unambiguously solved namely by analyzing the consequences of the special theory of relativity. In the first place this can be done by revealing the meaning of the relativity of simultaneity (see Putnam [5]). Bearing in mind (i) that the present (the three-dimensional world at the moment "now") is the class of simultaneous event at the present moment, and (ii) that observers in relative motion have different sets of simultaneous events (according to the relativity of simultaneity), it follows that the observers in relative motion have different three-dimensional worlds. If we consider the existence of objects as observerindependent (absolute) it follows that the three-dimensional worlds of the observers in relative motion exist equally. This is possible only if reality is a four-dimensional world. In this case the observers in relative motion consider different three-dimensional space-like slices of the four-dimensional world to be their presents (their three-dimensional worlds). The relativity of simultaneity would be impossible if the world is not four-dimensional: if we assume that reality is a three-dimensional world, evolving in time, this world will be the only one that exists; this means that all observers in relative motion, having a common three-dimensional world, will have the same set of simultaneous events which contradicts the theory of relativity. In other words, the relativity of simultaneity is not possible if reality is a three-dimensioanl world. Contradictions with the special theory of relativity are also arrived at in analyzing its remaining kinematic consequences (relativistic length contraction, relativistic time dilatation and the twin paradox) [7].

Another argument against the three-dimensionality (or in favour of the four-dimensionality) of the world is the conventionality of simultaneity. It follows from it that a given observer can regard as his present an arbitrary three-dimensional space-like slice of the region outside the light cone (i.e. of the region Elsewhere). However, if the observer considers his present to be the only reality, a conventionality with respect to what exists inevitably follows form the conventionality of simultaneity: the observer will be free to choose which three-dimensional space-like slice to regard as his three-dimensional world. The conventionality of simultaneity proves to be trivial (a matter of description) only if reality is a four-dimensional world. In such a case the entire region Elsewhere exists (see Weingrad [6]) and for that reason an observer can arbitrarily consider any slice of it (i.e. any slice of the four-dimensional world) to be his present.

From what has been said it becomes clear, I believe, that the world we live in is a four-dimensional one. Consequently, the flow of time is a minddependent phenomenon. If the consequences of the special theory of relativity are analyzed consistently and correctly, this conclusion is inevitable.

Establishing that the flow of time is minddependent is rather a discovery of a new problem (which may prove to be very deep and touching on concepts such as free will ) than a solution of the old problem of time flow.


REFERENCES


  1. H. Reichenbach, The Direction of Time, (University of California Press, 1956), p.16
  2. A. Grunbaum, ‘The Exclusion of Becoming from the Physical World’, In: M. Capek (ed.), The Concepts of Space and Time, (D. Reidel, 1976), pp. 471-500.
  3. H. Weyl, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1949), p. 116.
  4. C. W. Rietdijk, Philosophy of Science 33 (1966) 341-344, Philosophy of Science 43 (1976) 598-609.
  5. H. Putnam, ‘Time and Physical Geometry’, Journal of Philosophy 64 (1967) 240-247.
  6. R. Weingard, ‘Relativity and the Reality of Past and Future Events’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 23 (1972) 119-121.
  7. V. Petkov, 'The Flow of Time According to Eleatic Philosophy and the Theory of Relativity' in C. Toegel (ed.), Structur und Dynamik wissenschaftlicher Theorien, (Frankfurm am Main, Bern, New York: P. Lang, 1986), pp. 121-149,



Back to the Minkowski Page
Back to the Main Page