Boltzmann’s suggestion, startling when first encountered, was that conscious beings could exist on either side of a point of lowest entropy, and that the beings on both sides would regard that point as being in their past. Time would seem to increase in both directions from it. In this view, time itself neither flows nor has a direction; it is at most a line. It is only the instantaneous configurations of matter, strung out like washing on the line, that very occasionally suggest that time has a direction associated with it. The direction is in the washing, not the line. What is more, depending on the position in the line, the ‘arrow’ will point in opposite directions.
This, then, gives a genuine cause for our awareness of motion and the passing of time. The conscious mind, in any instant, is actually aware of a short segment of the ‘line of time’, along which there is an entropy gradient. Time seems to flow in the direction of increasing entropy. Interestingly, consciousness and understanding are always tied to a short time span, which was called the specious present by the philosopher and psychologist William James (brother of novelist Henry). The specious present is closely related to the phenomenon of short-term memory and our ability to grasp and understand sentences, lines of poems and snatches of melody. It has a duration of up to about three seconds.
The key element in Boltzmann’s idea is comparison of structures. There needs to be qualitative change in the brain patterns along a segment of the ‘line of time’. If the brain pattern in each instant is likened to a card, then the patterns become a pack of cards, and our conscious experience of time flow arises (somehow) from the change of pattern across the pack. Though we may not understand the mechanism, the effect does have a cause.
To summarize: Newtonian time is an abstract line with direction – from past to future. Boltzmann keeps the line but not the direction. That belongs to the ‘washing’. But do we need the line?
TIME WITHOUT TIME
Perhaps not. The brain often fools us. When we first look at certain drawings, they appear to represent one thing. After a while, the image flickers and we see something different. The reason is well understood: the brain processes information before we get it. We do not see things as they are but as the brain interprets them for us. There are very understandable reasons for this, but the fact remains that we are often fooled by such ‘deceptions’.
Could all motion be a similar deception? Suppose we could freeze the atoms in our brains at some instant. We might be watching gymnastics. What would brain specialists find in the frozen pattern of the atoms? They will surely find that the pattern encodes the positions of the gymnasts at that instant. But it may also encode the positions of the gymnasts at preceding instants. Indeed, it is virtually certain that it will, because the brain cannot process data instantaneously, and it is known that the processing involves transmission of data backwards and forwards in the brain. Information about the positions of the gymnasts over a certain span of time is therefore present in the brain in any one instant.
I suggest that the brain in any instant always contains, as it were, several stills of a movie. They correspond to different positions of objects we think we see moving. The idea is that it is this collection of ‘stills’, all present in any one instant, that stands in psychophysical parallel with the motion we actually see. The brain ‘plays the movie for us’, rather as an orchestra plays the notes on the score. I am not going to attempt to elaborate on how this might be done; all I want to do is get the basic idea across. There are two parts to it. First, each instantaneous brain pattern contains information about several successive positions of the objects we see moving in the world. These successive positions need correspond only to a smallish fraction of a second. Second, the appearance of motion is created by the instantaneous brain pattern out of the simultaneous presence of several different ‘images’ of the gymnasts contained within it (Figure 2). This happens independently of the earlier and later brain states.
Figure 2 My explanation of how it might be possible to ‘see’ motion when none is there is illustrated in this chronophotograph of a sideways jump. My assumption is that the pattern of the atoms in our brain encodes, at any instant, about six or seven images of the gymnast. The standard ‘temporal’ explanation is that the gymnast passes through all these positions in a fraction of a second. My idea is that when we think we are seeing actual motion, the brain is interpreting all the simultaneously encoded images and, so to speak, playing them as a movie.
This proposal is not so very different from Boltzmann’s idea that the sense of motion is created from several qualitatively different patterns arranged along the ‘line of time’. Instead, I am suggesting that it is created by the brain from the juxtaposition of several subpatterns within one pattern. The arrow of time is not in the washing line, it is not in several pieces of washing, it is in each piece. If we could preserve one of these brain patterns in aspic, it would be perpetually conscious of seeing the gymnasts in motion. If you find this idea a bit startling, I am glad because I find it does bring home the ‘freezing of motion’ that I think we have to contemplate. In fact, since brain function and consciousness are fields in which I have no expertise, I would like you to regard this suggestion in the first place as a means of getting across an idea, the main application of which I see in physics.
To that end, I want to introduce the notion of special Nows, or time capsules, as I call them.
TIME CAPSULES
By a time capsule, I mean any fixed pattern that creates or encodes the appearance of motion, change or history. It is easiest to explain the idea by examples, for example the Ariel in the storm in Turner’s painting. Although they are all static in themselves, pictures often suggest that something has happened or is happening – with a vengeance in this painting. But in reality it simply is. I know no better example of something static that gives the impression of motion.
In pictures, the impression is deliberately created. Much more significant for my purposes are time capsules that arise naturally and have to be interpreted, by the examination of records they seem to contain. Records, or apparent records, play a vital role in my idea that time is an illusion. I use records primarily in the sense of, for example, fossils, which occur naturally and are interpreted by us as relics of things that actually existed. Less directly, all geological formations, rock strata in particular, are now invariably interpreted by geologists as constituting a record (to be interpreted) of past geological processes. Finally, there are records that people create deliberately: doctors’ notes, minutes of committee meetings, astronomical observations, photographs, descriptions of the initial and final conditions of controlled experiments, and so on. All such things, and many more, I call records. My position is that the things we call records are real enough, and so is their structure. They are the genuine cause of our belief in time. Our only mistake is the interpretation: time capsules have a cause, but time is no part of it.
Let me now attempt a more formal definition. Any static configuration that appears to contain mutually consistent records of processes that took place in a past in accordance with certain laws may be called a time capsule. From my point of view, it is unfortunate that the dictionary definition (in Webster’s) of a time capsule is ‘a container holding historical records or objects representative of current culture that is deposited (as in a cornerstone) for preservation until discovery by some future age’. I do not mean that. But we have all had the experience of walking into a house untouched by historical development for decades or centuries and declaring it to be a perfect time capsule. This, I believe, happens to us in each instant of time we experience. The only difference is that we experience our current time capsule, not someone else’s. And we are mistaken in the way we interpret the experience.