Search FQXi


Steve Dufourny: "happy to see you, but where were you Tom ? :)" in Manipulating the Quantum...

Thomas Ray: "Peter, Bravo!" in Manipulating the Quantum...

Joe Fisher: "Dearn Steve, There am no such a thing as a humanly contrived abstract..." in Watching the Observers

Steve Agnew: "Please understand that an infinite anything is unknowable and unmeasurable..." in Watching the Observers

kurt stocklmeir: "spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of..." in Alternative Models of...

Kevin Adams: "Very interesting theme! Thanks a lot for this information. I just going to..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

munized ward: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..." in Natural Selection in...

click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

June 26, 2017

Evolving Time’s Arrow
Why do we perceive time marching in one direction? Combining physics, evolutionary biology and cognitive science could close the gap between the symmetrical notion of time in fundamental science and our everyday experience.
by Anil Ananthaswamy
FQXi Awardees: Craig Callender
October 11, 2011
Bookmark and Share

University of California, San Diego
"The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." It was none other than Einstein who uttered these words. He was speaking about how our perception of time differs from the fundamental nature of time in physics.

Take our perceptions first: We have a clear sense of the present moment, what came before, and what might come after. Unfortunately, physics treats time rather differently. Einstein’s theory of special relativity presents us with a four-dimensional spacetime, in which the past, present and future are already mapped out. There is no special "now," just as there’s no special "here." And just like spacetime does not have a fundamental direction—forcing us to move inexorably from east to west, say—time does not flow.

"You have this big gap between the time of fundamental science and the time we experience," says Craig Callender, a philosopher at the University of California, San Diego. It’s this gap that he has set out to narrow, using ideas from physics, evolutionary theory and cognitive science.

The question of why time marches in one direction is tough to answer, says Callender, not least because if you want to talk about an arrow of time, you have to be specific about exactly which arrow you mean. While Einstein’s naked spacetime—without any fields and particles—may not differentiate between the past and the future, Callender notes that physical processes have directionality. That brings us to the first arrow: thermodynamic systems become more disordered, moving towards greater and greater entropy. There is also a second arrow: the causal arrow of time, which we take for granted in everyday life. "Actions I do now can change where I’ll die, but nothing I can do will change where I was born," says Callender.

Slicing Up Spacetime

These arrows and our commonsense notions treat time as very different than space. Is there some connection between these different ways of treating time? To find out, Callender has been slicing up Einstein’s spacetime, as though it were a 4-dimensional loaf of bread. You can imagine taking a 3-dimensional slice of spacetime along the time axis and another 3-dimensional slice along, say, the east-west axis. The idea is to evolve each slice along its respective axis and get to the next slice. In the first case, you are varying time and, in the second, you are varying time and space.

Could the story of the cosmos have been told sideways rather than from
past to future?

The slicing allows Callender to investigate if can we tell the story of the universe sideways, from east to west, rather than from past to future. Given that Einstein’s picture puts time and space on an equal footing, with time having no special properties, we might expect the answer to be yes. "Well, the answer is no, surprisingly, for some specified class of equations," Callender says.

Intriguingly, these equations, which suggest that time and space are different on a fundamental level, tend to be the ones that physicists use most often to describe nature. Callender wants to see whether this holds generally across physics because it might provide a link between the thermodynamic and causal arrows of time.

Callender described the problem of time, and his way of slicing up the universe, in a talk at FQXi’s Setting Time Aright meeting:

If physics can explain how a causal arrow of time emerges, then biology will do the rest, says Callender. Evolution, he argues, selects for creatures that care more about the future than about the past. "Because of a causal arrow, a creature can’t do anything about the past to increase its fitness, but can towards the future," he explains.

If physics can explain how
a causal arrow of time emerges
then biology will do the rest.
- Craig Callender
We would have developed the perception that now is distinct from the past and future in order to communicate and survive in the world. Our brains gather information, via the eyes, ears and other senses, and integrate them to create an impression of an event that’s occurring now. It’s necessary to, say, figure out that a tiger is about to attack you now, and you have to run. Or if two people are communicating, there is an implicit understanding that what’s being said is being said now (contrast this with exchanging letters, which have to dated). The brain automatically timestamps anything that’s being said as being said now.

Research in cognitive science backs Callender’s claim that caring more about the future than the past is important. Eugene Caruso a behavioral scientist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, and colleagues asked 121 volunteers at Harvard University to imagine working for five hours entering data into a computer and to think of a fair payment for the job. Some volunteers were asked to imagine that they had already completed the work a month ago, while others were asked to think about it as work to be done in a month’s time. The result: the volunteers felt they deserved about 101 per cent more for future work than for past work.

Emotional Value

There’s another interesting twist to this notion of "value asymmetry": If you are asked to value some future action that you would undertake versus the value of the same action done by someone else, relative to the same action done in the past, you’ll tend to ask for more money for yourself, while estimating someone else’s past and future actions as having equal value.

Caruso and colleagues have shown that there are two main factors that contribute to this value asymmetry: the desire to reduce uncertainty and the ability to exert control over one’s life. Our emotions play a key role accounting for value asymmetry. "Emotions tend to be aroused most effectively by events that actions can meaningfully influence," says Caruso.

Callender will use part of his $102,263 FQXi grant to test whether this value asymmetry extends to kinship. He plans to set up a study in which people will be asked to compare the value of past versus future actions, not just for themselves and unrelated individuals, but also for people who are emotionally close to them, such as their spouses and kids. Such an experiment would specifically test whether evolution has selected for such emotions to increase our future fitness, says Callender, and Caruso agrees.

But don’t be mistaken into thinking that these ideas about an asymmetric overvaluation of the future are anything new. Humans have always been doing it, prompting Seneca the Younger, the Roman philosopher, to rather bluntly warn over 2000 years ago: "All the future is uncertain, and more certain to be worse than otherwise."

Comment on this Article

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!
  • Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

  • HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

  • You may use superscript (10100) and subscript (A2) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.

  • You may use bold (important) and italics (emphasize) using [b]...[/b] and [i]...[/i] tags.

  • You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation [hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor

Your name: (optional)

Important: In order to combat spam, please select the letter in this menu between 'M' and 'O':

Recent Comments

Physics or Schizophrenia ?

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Yet the postulates of special relativity are...

Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks veritable diarrhea via proliferation of uncritical “pop-sci” science-writers where all is spectacle...

Prof. Callender is my Prof at UCSD and he does an outstanding job teaching the philosophy of physics, hes so great!!!

read all article comments

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.