Essentia Foundation: It’s Time for Mindful physics!

We begin our coverage of Essentia Foundation’s 2023 work conference with host, Prof. Bernard Carr’s introduction to the conference. He highlights how fundamental mind is to physics, and then elaborates on the intimate relationship between mind and time, suggesting that only a better understanding of time will allow us to make sense of individual minds. The full program of the conference can be found here.

Time & Mind: Finding a theory that closes the gap

Prof. Bernard Carr, PhD Prof. Lee Smolin, PhD Prof. George Ellis, PhD Prof. Jonathan Schooler, PhD

The role of time in mainstream physics—as it arises in Newtonian theory, relativity theory, quantum theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics—is relatively well understood. However, there is a profound mystery concerning the passage of time associated with consciousness. Many physicists maintain that this passage is purely a feature of mind, going beyond physics itself, while others argue that it points to some new physical paradigm, perhaps associated with the marriage of relativity theory and quantum theory. Certainly, the status of time in any final theory of physics remains unclear.

The possibility that physics may eventually accommodate and elucidate the nature of consciousness and associated experience suggests the need to address issues that are currently viewed as being on the borders of physics and philosophy. It also impinges on developments in neurophysics, cognitive science and psychology. So this is an interdisciplinary problem and this conference brings together experts in all the relevant fields. There are contributions from the physicists Bernard Carr, Paul Davies, George Ellis and Lee Smolin, the neurophysicist Alex Gomez-Marin, the cognitive neuroscientist Julia Mossbridge, and the psychologists Jonathan Schooler and Marc Wittmann.
Although the conference is organized by Essentia Foundation—which is associated with the philosophical tradition of Idealism—it covered a wide range of approaches. Our vision is to cover topics that are relevant to Idealism, but not to exclude alternative views from the conference.

This is day 2 of Essentia’s Time and Mind conference, our scientific discussion of the profound mystery of the passage of time and how it relates to consciousness.

Many physicists maintain that the passage of time is purely a feature of mind, beyond physics itself, while others argue that it points to some new physical paradigm, perhaps associated with the marriage of relativity theory and quantum theory. Certainly, the status of time in any final theory of physics remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that a theory that encompasses time and mind will have to go beyond Einstein’s Block Universe.

The possibility that physics may eventually accommodate and elucidate the nature of consciousness and associated experience suggests the need to address issues that are currently viewed as being on the borders of physics and philosophy. It also impinges on developments in neurophysics, cognitive science and psychology. So this is an interdisciplinary problem and this conference brings together experts in all the relevant fields. There are contributions from the physicists Bernard Carr, Paul Davies, George Ellis and Lee Smolin, the neurophysicist Alex Gomez-Marin, the cognitive neuroscientist Julia Mossbridge, and the psychologists Jonathan Schooler and Marc Wittmann.

Although the conference is organized by Essentia Foundation—which is associated with the philosophical tradition of Idealism—it covered a wide range of approaches. Our vision is to cover topics that are relevant to Idealism, but not to exclude alternative views from the conference.

Hans Busstra sat down with Bernard Carr and Bernardo Kastrup to discuss all presentations given at our 'Time and Mind' conference and elaborate further on their own ideas. For instance, both Carr and Kastrup agree that, if you take an idealist perspective, you need multiple time dimensions to account for the decomposition problem: the mechanism by which consciousness with a big ‘C’ resolves itself into consciousness with a small ‘c’.

I. Bernard Carr and Bernardo Kastrup discussing their own views:

00:00 Intro
04:06 Opening
09:42 Bernard Carr on the bridge between physics an psi phenomena
10:50 Scientists don't like mystics and mystics don't like scientists...
11:26 Is the paranormal compatible with Einstein's Block Universe?
19:01 On physicists understanding of time
25:35 What is the relationship between time and mind?
28:18 Bernardo on the three different metaphysical interpretations of time
32:52 Levels of 'selves'
36:21 No philosopher seems to talk about the specious present...
37:32 Einsteins Block Universe
38:56 On Einstein calling the passage of time a stubborn illusion...
40:52 On the importance of careful language
43:16 How a multi-dimensional time model can explain different identities
52:10 On models and reality
54:20 Time in General Relativity
58:15 Time in Quantum Theory
59:21 Lee Smolin's understanding of time
1:00:38 The role of time in different branches of Quantum Theory
1:01:54 Is time fundamental, asked to Bernard Carr.

II. Bernard Carr and Bernardo Kastrup discussing the conference presentations:

1:02:34 On Lee Smolin's 'presentism'
1:08:31 On George Ellis' presentation: There is no way a physical block universe can have come into existence: the future not yet determined!
1:15:05 On Lee Smolin's presentation: The role of qualia in temporal naturalism
1:22:16 On Bernard Carr's own presentation: Making space for time and consciousness in physics
1:26:26 On Kip Thorne's ideas
1:30:39 Bernardo on the undeniability of parapsychological phenomena
1:33:10 On Jonathan Schooler's presentation: Could postulating three dimension of time address assorted disparities between physics and experience?
1:38:38 The Specious Present
1:38:54 On Marc Wittman's presentation: Subjective time during ordinary and altered states of consciousness
1:47:21 On Alex Gomez Marin's presentation: The consciousness of neuroscience
1:52:53 On Paul Davies's presentation: The muddlescape of time
1:59:51 On Julia Mossbridge's presentation: How do precognition and other perceptual anomalies shed light on models of consciousness, unconsciousness and time?
2:25:21 Closing remarks

You can watch all the presentations referred to in this conversation in full length here:

On George Ellis - There is no way a physical block universe can have come into existence: the future not yet determined!    • Time & Mind: Was Einstein Wrong About...  

Lee Smolin - The role of qualia in temporal naturalism    • Time & Mind: Was Einstein Wrong About...  

Bernard Carr - Making space for time and consciousness in physics    • Time & Mind: Was Einstein Wrong About...  

Jonathan Schooler - Could postulating three dimension of time address assorted disparities between physics and experience?    • Time & Mind: Was Einstein Wrong About...  

Marc Wittman's - Subjective time during ordinary and altered states of consciousness    • Going Beyond Einstein: Linking Time A...  

Alex Gomez Marin - The consciousness of neuroscience    • Going Beyond Einstein: Linking Time A...  

Paul Davies - The muddlescape of time    • Going Beyond Einstein: Linking Time A...  

Julia Mossbridge's - How do precognition and other perceptual anomalies shed light on models of consciousness, unconsciousness and time?    • Going Beyond Einstein: Linking Time A...  

Bernard Carr's essay "Higher Dimensions of Consiousness": https://www.essentiafoundation.org/ho...

[Laird]

In response to the final video (I haven't watched the others), "What happens to consciousness when clocks stop? | Bernard Carr & Bernardo Kastrup", I want to comment on some things Bernardo said.

Between 29:15 and 30:19, he affirmed that the solution to the decombination problem involves the idea of multiple time dimensions: it is the case that he and Hans are the same person apparently at the same (unidimensional) time, only because there are actually multiple dimensions of time, such that, really, they are the same person talking to himself across a timeline.

In the course of this, he also affirmed that he is the same person who was his childhood self back when he was a child.

Then, between 1:54:00 and 1:57:44, he at the same time affirmed that there is no fixed identity - that he is "completely different from what I was when I was five years old" - and described the possibility of a true time travel in which, when travelling to the past, one's identity is restored to the exact state it was in at that time, including one's memories, such that one has no way of knowing one has time travelled, and that this could be happening to us at every moment - we could be flitting between past and future randomly with the illusion of linear time.

I found this new (aspect of his) solution to the decombination problem interesting, because I'd never heard/seen him express it before. It does, though, seem to be fatally problematic, at least in the sense that it is supposed to be resolving the problem with the notion of there being only One True Self identified by Titus Rivas.

There seem to be two possibilities for the scenario in which Hans and Bernardo are the same person talking across a timeline. One is that in which there are two separate timelines which run in parallel: Hans is on one and Bernardo is on the other, and they somehow are able to communicate across them as though they were on the same timeline. The problem here is that if these timelines are disconnected and simply run in parallel, then there is no reason to consider that Hans and Bernardo are really the same person in the same way in which Bernardo now is the same person as Bernardo was as a child.

The other possibility is that in which Bernardo and Hans are on a singular timeline in which one of them is on an earlier part of it, and will later (from his subjective perspective) arrive at the later part in which he seems to have the identity of the other. This would allow for the possibility that Hans and Bernardo are really the same person in the same way in which Bernardo now is the same person as Bernardo was as a child, but - aside from the semantic issue of its seeming to be incompatible with Bernardo's reference to multiple timelines given that this is a singular timeline - it comes with its own problem: the impossibility of conversation.

Here's what I mean by that. Let's say that Hans is on the earlier part of the timeline, and Bernardo on the later part. Let's now say Hans says something to Bernardo. He won't be able to respond until, from his subjective perspective, he traverses the timeline to arrive at the point at which his identity has become that of Bernardo. So far, no problem: he simply responds as Bernardo to his earlier identity as Hans. Now, though, the problem appears: how can he respond to Bernardo as Hans when he has left that identity (on the early part of the timeline) far behind? The answer is: he can't.

Both possibilities, then, fail, and this does not refute Titus's argument.

The problem with the second possibility might in a sense be dissolved by the time-travelling idea that Bernardo later expressed though, so let's consider that idea. In its ultimate extrapolation, there is only One True Self (who is not just Bernardo talking to Hans, but every person talking to every other person) who randomly time-travels through an otherwise static block universe into each otherwise apparently distinct person at random points.

There are several problems with this idea though, one of which is fatal. The first is merely one of redundancy: if this is the true refutation of Titus's argument, then the "talking across timelines" solution is not just fatally (it seems to me) problematic for the reasons I gave above, but unnecessary.

The second, also non-fatal, is one of implausibility: that our linear temporal experience is merely an illusion into which we drop at random is not just counterintuitive but seems to violate the principle that we should posit straightforward solutions where we have no need to posit counterintuitive ones, and given that the only reason to posit this notion is to justify an already counterintuitive idea (that of the One True Self), the principle is violated.

The third is fatal: on Bernardo's maximally monist view, the One True Self, strictly, is everything, and it is incoherent for everything - which encompasses and includes all time - to travel within and bounded by time, let alone to become (be) a subset (personal identity) of Itself.

[Edited to add the third and final, fatal problem, and to tighten other wording.]