Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Don Limuti: on 4/7/17 at 11:38am UTC, wrote Laurence, I loved this essay. We know it's an illusion, and yet we make...

James Hoover: on 4/4/17 at 17:32pm UTC, wrote Laurence, Of thinking too precisely on th' event— A thought which,...

Ines Samengo: on 4/1/17 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote Hi, Laurence, I just write to apologize because it took me a long time to...

Marc Séguin: on 3/25/17 at 23:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Laurence, Congratulations for another great essay. You took the...

Robert Groess: on 3/25/17 at 9:36am UTC, wrote Dear Laurence Hitterdale, Thank you very much for your intersting essay...

Peter Jackson: on 3/23/17 at 13:50pm UTC, wrote Laurence, A very interesting essay and resume of possibilities, though as...

Laurence Hitterdale: on 3/16/17 at 18:18pm UTC, wrote Hi Inés, I much appreciate your comment, because you have stated the key...

Laurence Hitterdale: on 3/16/17 at 4:00am UTC, wrote Dear Tejinder, Thank you for your kind words. You ask what answer I would...


Steve Dufourny: "Hi Georgina and Mr Sturm, Mr Sturm , sad that you have a problem with..." in The Present State of...

Deserdi Chapas: "Hi FQXI Members: We found the courage to asymptotically take one step..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "I'd like to share with you a thoroughly revised version of the shorter..." in The Present State of...

Steve Dufourny: "I have improved a lot this theory of spherisation withe quantum and..." in Alternative Models of...

David Vognar: "Quantum physics isn't the end of reality; we just need better rulers that..." in Quantum Physics and the...

algo rrithm: "A digital marketing agency in India is showcasing that happens through Web..." in Dark matter effect on the...

algo rrithm: "A branding agency in delhi is a firm having some expertise in the key and..." in The secret of planets’...

algo rrithm: "Advanced advertising assists brands with arriving at their interest group..." in Dark matter effect on the...

click titles to read articles

The Entropic Price of Building the Perfect Clock: Q&A with Natalia Ares
Experiments investigating the thermodynamics of clocks can teach us about the origin of time's arrow.

Schrödinger’s A.I. Could Test the Foundations of Reality
Physicists lay out blueprints for running a 'Wigner's Friend' experiment using an artificial intelligence, built on a quantum computer, as an 'observer.'

Expanding the Mind (Literally): Q&A with Karim Jerbi and Jordan O'Byrne
Using a brain-computer interface to create a consciousness 'add-on' to help test Integrated Information Theory.

Quanthoven's Fifth
A quantum computer composes chart-topping music, programmed by physicists striving to understand consciousness.

The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer
A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

January 29, 2023

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Conscious Goal-Seeking and the Nature of Time by Laurence Hitterdale [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 21:44 GMT
Essay Abstract

Forming conscious intentions for the future and then seeking to realize those intentions are processes central to human life. If these activities are to make sense, then apparently the future, unlike the present and the past, must be open or perhaps even not-yet-existent. But what if all parts of time, past, present, and future, are equally real? Such a view about the nature of time is the considered opinion of many experts on the subject. This is not the place to examine the evidence or to repeat the arguments for this view. It is sufficient to notice that the evidence and arguments are strong enough that the view has to be taken seriously when we try to understand the practices of setting goals in the future and working to implement them. Looking at these future-oriented practices in the light of the proposal about the nature of time, we reach two results. For one thing, if present and future are equally real, people may be able to understand that fact intellectually, but they must live and act with a working assumption that the future is merely potential in a way that the past and the present are not. So, if the proposal about time is true and if people accept it as true, theoretical understanding will be at variance with an implicit assumption essential for daily living. And secondly, because we do not at present know whether the proposal is true, efforts to attain future goals are subject to uncertainty about their status in the scheme of things. Maybe those efforts taken at face value make sense; on the other hand, maybe the efforts, although irremovable practices in human life, must be understood in a new way in order to explain their actual place in time.

Author Bio

Laurence Hitterdale holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland. Having worked for both business firms and academic institutions, he is currently a professor of information systems at Glendale College in California. His philosophical work is focused on ontology, philosophy of cosmology, and philosophy of mind. He has entered three previous FQXi essay contests, and his 2014 essay, “A Rope over an Abyss,” was awarded a special commendation prize.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

sridattadev kancharla wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 15:29 GMT
Dear Laurence,

I wish you all the best with your in depth analysis of how intentions govern reality. I welcome you to read there are no goals as such in which I propose that consciousness is the fundamental basis of existence and that intent is the only true content of reality. Also that we can quantify consciousness using Riemann sphere and achieve artificial consciousness as per the article Representation of qdits on Riemann Sphere. Consciousness alone is real, space-time and light are emergent from consciousness aka i, i thinks therefore we are.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 01:25 GMT
Laurence Hitterdale,

Good to see you back. I enjoyed your essay, which, as always, portrays careful reasoning; in particular, focusing on 'time' as it is currently and often 'misconceived'. You note that "this unreality of time need not mean that time is absolutely nothing." Indeed!

Similarly to Georgina Parry, I believe we are consciously aware of the Now, while past and...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 16:55 GMT
Hello Edwin,

Good to hear from you again. Thanks for your comments on this essay and for your kind thoughts. I intend to read your essay and to comment in the discussions about it.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share

Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear Professor Hitterdale,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

David Brown wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 19:54 GMT
"The great advantage of time without passage is the one which Einstein discerned: good things now past to us are in themselved still existent." What is meant by "time without passage" in terms of a mathematical model? I have suggested that Wolfram's mobile automaton might have a mathematical model that uses the monster group and the 6 pariah groups to restrict string vibrations to 3 copies of the Leech lattice. The 3 most important predictions of this approach might be the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect, the Space Roar Profile Prediction, and the 64 Particles Hypothesis. Time might exist because 2^46 divides the order of the monster group. Space might exist because 3^20 divides the order of the monster group.

Consider the following hypothesis: Our universe was born 13.82 billion years ago. It would have expanded forever in the dark energy and inflationary mode of Newton and Einstein, but for the fact, noticed by Milgrom, that Newton and Einstein were not quite right. Gravitons, unlike photons, gluons, and all other fundamental particles, can sometimes escape from the boundary of the multiverse into the interior of the multiverse. This process of escape, appearing as dark energy, causes a slight excess of gravitational red shift known as dark matter and a slight excess of flattening in spacetime known as Milgromian inflation. Thus our universe expands, collapses in one Planck time interval and is reborn every 81.6 ± 1.7 billion years.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 16:42 GMT
Thank you for your detailed comment. In reply to your question as to what is meant by “time without passage” in terms of a mathematical model, I can say that the passage or flow of time seems to be something that cannot be captured in a mathematical model. On other words, time with passage and time without passage would be modeled in the same way. This might be a reason to dismiss the concept of temporal passage as superfluous and perhaps even in some way senseless. One might, however, consider this peculiarity of temporal flow as a way to check for its presence or absence. Is there something about time which cannot be represented in a mathematical model?

Bookmark and Share

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 15:23 GMT
"the passage or flow of time seems to be something that cannot be captured in a mathematical model."

as a software engineer who has used a hybrid combination of mathematical models and discrete event-driven (time-based) simulations to model, for example, diesel trucks, it would appear that even just this one example would be a contradiction of what you say. i *would* however agree strongly that certain mathematical equations - particularly recursive ones - would often simply not have formal solutions, only analytical ones (or computer-based discrete solutions).

i would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 18:30 GMT
Many aspects of time can be represented or modeled mathematically. In particular, the linear order of before and after can be represented mathematically. The question, however, is whether the sense of coming-to-be and passing-away can have a mathematical representation. People who deny the reality of temporal flow or passage would say that the B-series linear order is all that is needed for practical or scientific purposes. Therefore, according to these people, temporal flow needs no mathematical representation and might as well not exist. It is a short step from there to say that temporal flow can have no mathematical representation and does not exist. One way to frame the issue is to ask how one could distinguish a mathematical representation of only the B-series temporal properties from a mathematical representation of both the A-series and B-series properties. If there is no difference between the two representations, then either the A-series properties exist but elude mathematical representation or else the supposed A-series properties are unreal.

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 01:06 GMT
Dear Prof Hitterdale,

Thank you for the nice essay on “ Time and consciousness "

You are observations are excellent,… “Understanding our preferences is important, but knowing the truth about reality is more important still.”

Don’t you feel defining “reality” is a bit difficult. Is it what you see, or touch , or through other senses or what told by others….? Good discussion sir.

Just I am diverting this topic………

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results.

With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and blog also where all my books and available for free downloading…

st wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please…………….

=snp. gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Laurence,

Lev and I are glad to see you’re back!

I highly appreciate how you put the problem about human condition for one or another status of time. I agree that “The illusion of passage, if it be an illusion, infects not just our thinking but also our living. Intellectually we may be able to overcome it, but experientially it is irremediable.” I see your consideration similar to one of Descartes, about his evil demon. What if we are fundamentally and incurably mislead in our thinking? My conclusion is the same, as Descartes’: the only way to have a meaning of life is to trust the God, and as a consequence to take for granted the correctness of our primary intuitions. We are writing in more details about that in our essay, which, I hope, you will comment.


Alexey Burov.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 17:47 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,

Thank you for your perceptive comments. I appreciated your essay last year, and I look forward to reading your new essay this time. I had not thought of the comparison with Descartes’ evil demon. Descartes posed a hypothetical possibility. People who argue that we are systematically deceived about one or more large-scale aspects of experience are in a way arguing that some-such possibility has to be taken as more than merely hypothetical. Various authors have propounded similar arguments about other features besides the nature of time. Perhaps the contemporary reworking of Descartes’ idea of thoroughgoing misconception leads to the question that Nick Bostrom asks, “Are you living in a computer simulation?” I will have some further comments on your essay in the discussion section for it.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share

Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Laurence,

Thank you for your insightful contemplation. If philosophy significantly involves the art of argument, then by way of compliment, I note that there are many ideas in your text that I'd like very much to argue. Alexey and I agree that it deserves the highest rating. I think also that your essay presents an example of questioning that can be applied to other ideas in philosophy, for example, mathematical Platonism or free will. What motivations and goals can we obtain from taking one or another position on these?

In a comment to us, you mentioned the connection of ethics and metaphysics. That is definitely an area of overlap between our essays. Since this area is especially fraught with problems, in that regard I'd like a pose a little criticism to your paper and ask a question.

Your text lacks a mention of the paradoxical worldview, which is very much at home in this debate. You are, no doubt, aware of the idea of a philosophical or dialectical contradiction, where mutually contradictory views are knowingly held. Likely you've also encountered entire worldviews that are contradictory in this special way. On the other hand, some philosophers, in striving to rid of any contradiction, go to extremes to declare things illusory, most famously Parmenides.

Some hold views where temporal and atemporal entities fundamentally coexist, with an understanding of a profound contradiction in this coexistence. Do you think there is a contradiction in such a worldview? Do you think that contradiction should be removed at all costs, a la Parmenides, or could it have a vital or at least tolerable role to play in metaphysics?

Thanks for your kind remarks on our page. You'll find a reply there, if you look.

Lev Burov

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 19:39 GMT
Reply Sunday 5 March 2017, 11:40

Dear Lev and Alexey,

I agree that the questions I raise about the implications of ideas concerning the nature of time can and should be applied to other ideas. The ideas that merit such inquiry include many that have been part of philosophical discussions for centuries and also ideas that have originated in, or at least gained prominence, through reflections on more recent scientific hypotheses.

In my view, there are both temporal and atemporal entities, and I do not think the reality of both together involves a contradiction.

Beyond that, I am not familiar with the “paradoxical worldview,” to which you refer. I tend to believe that self-contradiction is necessarily a sign of falsehood and that, therefore, contradictions are to be avoided. It is hard to understand how reality itself could be paradoxical or self-contradictory. However, you seem to be talking about contradictions inside worldviews, not inside the world itself, because you mention situations “where mutually contradictory views are knowingly held.” That would mean that the best worldview available to a particular person at a particular time would be one that contains unresolved contradictions. That belief about worldviews, not about the world itself, I can understand. This certainly has been the actual epistemic situation of many people at many times. More speculatively, it might be an epistemic situation which will always be characteristic of human thinking.

I intend to make some additional comments on the discussion page for your essay.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share

Lev Burov replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 19:51 GMT
Dear Laurence,

I thought a little about your answer, and I have one more question for you. You say that it is hard to understand how reality itself can be paradoxical. It is, I agree, however, it would be hard to deny the fact paradoxes do exist, thus being part of reality. Wouldn't that mean that parts of reality itself are intrinsically paradoxical?

Now, you may reply that paradoxes only exist in thought. But, if we're trying to understand the connection between mathematics, which is possibly the epitome of atemporality, and thought with its goals and intentions, the epitome of time flow, paradoxes begin to play a major role in this contemplation. Can you see a way around this difficulty that is not Parmenidean, or are you ready to embrace the paradox, as, for example, Penrose does?

"There is, finally, a further mystery concerning Fig. 1.3, which I have left to the last. I have deliberately drawn the figure so as to illustrate a paradox. How can it be that, in accordance with my own prejudices, each world appears to encompass the next one in its entirety? I do not regard this issue as a reason for abandoning my prejudices, but merely for demonstrating the presence of an even deeper mystery that transcends those which I have been pointing to above. There may be a sense in which the three worlds are not separate at all, but merely reflect, individually, aspects of a deeper truth about the world as a whole of which we have little conception at the present time." -- from Road to Reality


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 15:28 GMT
hi laurence,

at the beginning of your essay you say, "our investigation is concerned only with

conscious future-directed aims and intentions."

could i ask why?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 17:54 GMT
The reason for the delimitation of topic is the constraint on the length of the essay. Conscious aims and intentions, as contrasted with non-conscious ones, raise particular questions which require special discussion.

Bookmark and Share

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 19:02 GMT
Dear Laurence,

Your essay makes for a good reading. I have downloaded it into my digital library. There are a couple of thoughts I have on this matter of subjective experience of time and objective time, which is as objective as we might be able to make it.

The curious persistent illusion of there being a present moment that marches forwards probably has something to do with how the brain processes memories, This moment of time is around 1/20th of a second, which is why the old NTSC standard for TV was 30Hz picture sweeps. Our mental time frame is longer than the TV picture scan rate and so we do not readily observe the refresh rate. This time interval is probably involved with the time it requires the hippocampus to process short term memory. Since this little "delta time" is what we consciously experience we are then faced with this illusion of a moment marching forwards.

I tend to think the irreversible nature of time is also wrapped into quantum state reduction. The shifting of entanglement phase in a diffusive fashion, or apparently so for times far shorter than the quantum Poincare recurrence time, means the illusion of a moment in time may be equivalent to the illusion of a quantum mechanical outcome in a measurement. At least in a Many World Interpretation perspective this might be so. BTW I am rather agnostic on MWI and other interpretations. My moment in time is on a spatial surface of simultaneity that has regions in the past and future of somebody driving by me in the opposite direction. This is standard special relativity. We then have a funny sense of what a moment actually consists of by relativity. This may also be the case with quantum mechanics.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Rick Searle wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 22:01 GMT
Dear Laurence,

I greatly enjoyed you essay as I always do in these contests. It struck me while reading it that maybe there are 2 forms of time. The first form would derive from the way the universe evolves from the laws. That overall evolution is deterministic and cannot be changed so that the distinction between past and future doesn't really exist within what they describe- if you know the past you know the future and vise-versa.

The second form would be related to consciousness which acts as a sort of clock. The more clocks- the more consciousness- the more time exists. It's an idea I got from a blurb in The Economists which I wrote about thus:

"It pointed out that with the milestone of 7 billion people in 2011 the aggregate age of everyone alive rose to 220 billion years. By the end of the 21st century:

The world’s population will have stabilized at just over 10 billion and those people will have accumulated 430 billion years of human experience between them.

The philosophical implications of this were not explored by the Economist, but think about it for a second. The number of subjective years lived today by the only fully sentient creature we know of- ourselves- is already more than ten times the chronological age of the physical universe! By the end of the century those subjective years will have grown to be around 30 times larger than the age of the Universe. In this sense life is not only older, but much older than the cosmos in which it swims and collectively might already be said to possess time on the scale of what any individual would consider eternity."

And can be found here:

Please check out my own essay in the current contest entitled "From Athena to AI" when you get the chance.

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:46 GMT
Hi, Laurence, thanks for the good read! I think you made an excellent exposition of how our search for the objective nature of time somehow challenges our dy-to-day thoughts and actions, distabilizing the intuitive base upon which we make future plans.

I just hope we soon see solid progress about the nature of time, I'm terribly curious about it, and I'm running out of time, at least, of the one that seems to flow. thanks again!


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Ines Samengo replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 15:05 GMT
Sorry, I am inés samengo - I seem to have been logged out at some point.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 18:18 GMT
Hi Inés,

I much appreciate your comment, because you have stated the key idea more clearly and concisely than I did.

I have also read your essay, and my comment about it is on the Web page for your essay.

Laurence Hitterdale

Bookmark and Share

Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 00:04 GMT
Dear Laurence Hitterdale

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Laurence,

I very much enjoyed your well-written and highly readable essay. Indeed, if the passage of time is not real, how ought we to conduct ourselves? Undoubtedly a fascinating question. But I am not sure if you chose to give an answer?

In my essay I argue that time itself is not real, in quantum theory. Rather, time is an emergent concept of the classical world.

My best wishes,


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 04:00 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

Thank you for your kind words.

You ask what answer I would give to the question whether the passage of time is unreal. You are correct to say that I do not explicitly answer the question in the essay. At present I would guess that the passage of time is real. I base this judgment on two premises. First, there is the fact that passage is a characteristic of time as...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 13:50 GMT

A very interesting essay and resume of possibilities, though as you say we have no choice anyway but to do what we do.

In Astronomy and Cosmology I'm used to the past being 'real'. Indeed the distant past is ALL we deal with as it's all we can observe. Of course we must also come to terms with infinity which maybe most still can't do. But then also is not the near future as instantaneously real at every instant? Can we not only act in the future as by the time we decide to act it surely IS the future!

I hope you may read my essay, where I identify that our minds continually imagine futures and 'run scenario's to find outcomes, even triggering motor neurone responses and biochemical releases, which outcomes feed back to help us set aims and make decisions. So does that mean the future really does have a causal link to the present?

Thanks for some fresh views and an interesting glimpse of another future.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 09:36 GMT
Dear Laurence Hitterdale,

Thank you very much for your intersting essay with a strong emphasis on the perceived notion of the flow of time. When you write “The great problem, according to many thinkers, is our supposition that time flows. We are wrong when we believe in a moving Now. There is no such thing as the passage of time.”, to me is a true statement depending on your vantage point. If we consider the full history of the universe, we can effectively treat our present point in space-time as a single point. A few thousand years in time from "now" or a few thousand light-years in any direction will not change what we can observe in cosmological terms. Having said that, I do believe George Ellis makes a strong argument for the case of an Evolving Block Universe and does challenge our thinking in that regard. I would be interested to know if you have had an opportunity to look at that closely?

In any event, I wanted to thank you for your essay and let you know I have rated it too in the meantime.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Member Marc Séguin wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Laurence,

Congratulations for another great essay. You took the interesting approach of framing the question of aims and intention with respect to the flow of time, and I agree with you that "if there is something wrong with our ordinary conception of time (...) then perhaps the mistake pervades what we think we are doing when we set goals and attempt to implement them." At the most fundamental level, I believe that the "totality of existence" is an atemporal, unchanging "given"(great Hermann Weyl and John Bigelow quotes, by the way), and in such a context, the notions of aims and intention can only have, at best, a localized, limited application. That's why I think it was quite a challenge to address this year's FQXi essay contest question, but you did so admirably.

I just rated your essay. Good luck in the contest --- so many essays, so little time!


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ines Samengo wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 19:34 GMT
Hi, Laurence, I just write to apologize because it took me a long time to reply my comment in my forum, I have now finally managed to engage in these discussions again. I left my reply there (nothing truly illuminating!), and let you know here, because after my long silence you are unlikely to see by your own initiative. Best! inés.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 17:32 GMT

Of thinking too precisely on th' event—

A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom

And ever three parts coward Hamlet

I would say rather four parts wisdom.

Your pearls of wisdom flow, unlike time. "The present moment slips away into the irretrievable past" I like that.

I can't help thinking that the past is accessible with our telescopic views into space, something the observer can share with the world. It is retrievable as an observer but as a data point.

Many mysteries.

Hope you get a chance to comment on my essay, for which I displayed an iota of precise thinking.

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 11:38 GMT

I loved this essay. We know it's an illusion, and yet we make goals. And we become good at explaining the illusion, and become equally good at setting goals. Go figure!

You want to read my short essay.

This is one essay is slowed down to read, it was delicious.


Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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.