Time Theory

Time Theory''God could not have had much time on His hands when He formed the PlanckLengths.''Dedicated to Doctor Fred Alan Wolf, and family and friends.Introduction: In my experience of the view of consciousness in quantum mechanicshas somewhat become a taboo subject [1]; or at least, it has become the generalscope of most individuals (usually academic rigid personalities) find discussingconsciousness quite difficult. Most people nowadays find no real reason withinthemselves to find any great importance within the foundation of consciousness andremain to a highly compressed and strict set of physical laws where many ofthe conscious theories that are floating around today have been frowned upon.Nevertheless, its not always been like this. In fact, during my investigationsinto consciousness, i visited many sites and saw this disingnuous nature towardstalking about quantum mechanics and consciousness, and invariably fell tojust making a fool of my alter ego's (names made on the web) and gave up reallytrying to give any real good insights. Quite disappointing, but moving on...The studies of consciousness from a quantum mechanical viewpoint quite literally''boomed'' in the early 1900's and was treated of even a greater importancehundreds and thousands of years even before this - before we became quiteinformative about the fundamental world around us. But why should consciousness befrowned upon with the highest impunity? Should it be that speculations about howour experience of the world and the actual physical external world should haveno corrolations at all?Even today, some of the greatest minds have now had their attentions directed atmore physical and fundamental theories of quantum mechanics, and consciousnessitself seems to have dissipated without much great interest. Schrodinger,Heisenberg, Einstein and Bohr (just to name a few) where all quite aware of thestrangeimportance of our experiences and how they seemed to manifest problems/paradoxeswithin the quantum field.What hasn't helped, is the publication of many psuedoscientific theories, theoriesso spectacular, you do actually need to give yourself a massive amount of faithto believe in them, since quantum experimentation seems to yet ellude theirvalidations.What i have found is that there are a few scientists out there who have alreadyformulated very believable theories on consciousness; and i have been aware ofthemfor some time now. I am not an actual paid-by-trade physicist, but i am a physicsstudent by definition, and i have been able to formulate some of my ownconclusionshelped to be drawn from the foundation of some of the ''forgotten'' theories ofthe conscious era. One major contributer to my speculations are mostly fromDoctor Fred Alan Wolf who has made an astounding effort to explain this wierdquantum mechanical world to the laymans, but equally keeping alive some of theirmore greater aspects and possibilities. One of the attempts i make within my workis to bring some life back to some of these theories.I am somewhat nerved about how the work would be looked upon, but at the same

time, i keep reminding myself about how physics became interesting for me. Becauseof the boring cold logic of physics in school, physics is not very widely liked.Needless to say, there is not any grand ratio i can give you which weighs sucha conclusion, but physics is very difficult to understand, take in, and therefore,find interest within. In fact, i do remember as a child that i had some strangeinterest in how the universe could have been an infinite ''thing'' - and usuallymy mental capacity would break down because of a result of not understanding it.Today, understanding the universe being infinite is a lot easier, than lets say,quantum entanglement. It wasn't until my grandfather passed away a few yearsback that i was left with a book.The book itself was written by Dr. Wolf (or as he has been liked to be called, Dr.Quantum) - and was titled Parallel Universes. I started to read it, and whilstmany of the concepts where very difficult and strange to conceptualize, it stillcontained within it the contending theories of consciousness. In a strangepsychological way, i felt i was part of the books confabulations. I had aconsciousness too, and somehow i was part of this physics. And here the seed ofinteresthad been germinated within my mind.I began to try and teach myself the better half of quantum physics, and many ofthe theories that where floating around at the time. I used to buy anypopularized science book or paper i could get my hands on. Whilst my mathcapabilities where much worse than today (and even still at that, they're stillquiteweak compared to what is required at a high university level), i rallied on tryingto understand, write and take in these miraculous and astounding idea's.The methodologies and the bizzare nature of reality at the fundamental level isarguably enough to scare many people off from wanting to understand, but wherethismight be the case with some people, there is very little we can do about that. Youeither like physics for some aspect or aspects of it, or you simply do not likeit and the whole complicated scenario's involved; not to mention the intense andhard work involved to trying to get a decent education on the structure of thetheory.I hope that at least my work will rally some interest out their in someones heartas it had and still does with me today. Enjoy.[1] - Public Lecture: "The Conscious Universe: Where Buddhism and PhysicsConverge"B. Alan Wallace, January 16, 2008,‘’ Physicists have long assumed that the universe is fundamentally composed ofmatter and energy and that life and consciousness are accidental byproductsof configurations of matter. But a growing number of distinguished physicists arenow suggesting that consciousness may play a much more fundamental rolein nature than scientists previously believed. In this lecture Alan Wallace willreview some of the most provocative theories presented by such leadingphysicists as John Wheeler, Stephen Hawking, and Andre Linde that challenge manyof the materialist assumptions based on outdated19th-century physics.And he will discuss how these theories may relate to Buddhist theories andpractices, including those of the Theravada, Mahayana, and Dzogchen traditions.’’John Smythies, ‘’Space, Time and Consciousness’’ Journal of Consciousness Studies,10, No. 3, 2003, pp. 47–56

Smythies, J.R. (1953), ‘The experience and description of the human body’, Brain,76, pp. 132–45..............................................................................................................................................................Time is Relative to the ObserverIsaac Newton defined his notion of time in the Principia, as follows(1962, p. 6):''Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flowsequably without relation to anything external, and by another name iscalled duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible andexternal whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means ofmotion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, amonth, a year.''It has been known, concerning the physicist Sir Isaac Newton that he was veryadvanced for his time concerning physics. In fact, a great deal of the physicswe work from today we can give credit to this man. He is arguably, the mostintelligent physicist who has ever graced this area of science.Reading from this passage I quoted, Newton brings to our attention ‘’the flow oftime.’’ Even though it may seem that time has indeed a flow throughout theuniverse, where it has no relation to anything external, it turns out that timemay have no flow at all. In fact, all previous attempts to view time as ariver that flows throughout the universe may turn out to be seriously erroneous.If time has a flow, what is it flowing relative to? It seems that the only systemtime could move relative to, is some observer. What if the flow of time,is simply the illusion, or creation of a mind? Maybe this is what is meant by‘’time having a flow relative to the human being,’’ but rather more accuratelybeing, ‘’time having a flow to some conscious experience.’’In fact, taking these premises seriously, it leads one to state that the onlyreason why time has a flow at all is due to our ability to make choices. I aman advocator that everything in this universe, including everything in itshistory, both future and past is all predetermined. This must mean that choicefor the observer is somehow an illusion. A recent conversation with an old friendlong gone helped me realize this on more pragmatic terms. Afterdiscussing the nature of what relativity predicted concerning the non-existence ofpast and future, (and also including a previous conversation concerningthe nature of choice for the human observer), it seemed that our ability to havechoice was determining our inability to see the past and future as beingillusions of the active mind.We make many choices in one day. These choices are all present to us along somelinear set of events which unfold for the observer. The way we make choicesmust happen in this fashion, for if it did not, we would not be able to makeintellectual distinction between an event which had just passed, to one thatis yet to happen, located of course in the future. This is of course, a cause andeffect principle of experience.But if there is no such thing as a true, or absolute choice, would then suggestthat our minds eye has a veil over it. This veil exists within actions madeover a linear time, with causal events taking fold in our applied everyday lives.As I speculated earlier, if this veil of deception was not true for the