So there’s two general hypotheses or theories about the nature of time.
One of them we’ll call Presentism.
And Presentism the notion is that only the present is real.
The past was real.
The future, some configuration of the future universe, will be real.
But for now only the present is real.
In contrast the opposing view is called Eternalism.
In Eternalism you have: the past, present and future are all equally real.
So that makes the present just an arbitrary point in time or an arbitrary moment in time.
So one way to think about this is: Now is to time as Here is to space.
So in the same sense that I happen to be here and some viewers are out at some other point
in space (and we’re all comfortable with that notion that other points in space are
equally real), in Eternalism you have to be comfortable with the notion that other moments
in time are as equally real as this moment in time and this is just an arbitrary moment.
And so under that view, there are other moments—or there’s a continuum of moments in time—that
are essentially already laid out within the universe.
And that universe in physics is called the Block Universe.
Under the Block Universe it makes sense to engage in a conversation about time travel,
because there’s other moments to go to.
Not that this does speak to the issue of whether time travel is actually plausible or not;
it’s probably not.
But it enables the conversation because other moments in time exist.
Under Presentism we can pretty much take the possibility of time travel off the table because
there’s no other moments to go to—Only the present is real.
So it doesn’t make sense to ask if you can travel to moments in time in the past or future
that don’t exist.
Now there’s a clash here between neuroscience and physics.
So intuitively time seems to be changing.
We humans experience the flow of time.
Under Eternalism, where everything is already laid out, the flow of time is a deep mystery
because it would seem to be that, if all the moments in time are already laid out within
the block universe, that the flow of time shouldn’t exist or must be an illusion.
So if the flow of time, if our subjective sense of the flow of time is an illusion,
we have this clash between physics and neuroscience because the dominant theory in physics is
that we live in the Block Universe.
And I should be clear: there is no consensus.
There’s no 100 percent agreement, but the standard view in physics is that—and this
comes in large part from Relativity—that we live in an Eternalist universe, in a Block
Universe, in which the past, present, and future are equally real.
So this raises the question of whether we can trust our brain to tell us that time is
flowing.
So I think we need to have an improved dialogue between physics and neuroscience here.
So on one hand we have to decide is if we want to accept that our subjective sense of
the flow of time is an objective fact about the universe.
We perceive time to be flowing; Things seem to be changing; The past seems to be vaporizing
into the past and the future seems to be wide open.
Now if it’s the case that we live in the Block Universe, that seems to be illusory
in a very deep sense.
So we have to decide if we want to take our subjective sense of the flow of time as an
objective fact about the universe.
That must be explained by physics.
Or in contrast, is our subjective sense of the flow of time merely an illusion (an illusion
in the deepest sense of that word because we’re perceiving something that doesn’t
exist in the physical world) that physics doesn’t need to explain (because it doesn’t
exist)?
And thus neuroscience needs to address where the solution comes from.
And this illusion is presumably tightly coupled with the problem of consciousness.