TIME AS AN ILLUSION

Paul S. Wesson

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Revised Version: 25 April 2009

Abstract We review the idea, due to Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle and Ballard, that time is

a subjective label, whose primary purpose is to order events, perhaps in a higher-

dimensional universe. In this approach, all moments in time exist simultaneously, but

they are ordered to create the illusion of an unfolding experience by some physical

mechanism. This, in the language of relativity, may be connected to a hypersurface in a

world that extends beyond spacetime. Death in such a scenario may be merely a phase

change.

A Paper for the Proceedings Minkowski Spacetime: A Hundred Years Later, edited by V.

Petkov, 2008, 21pp.

Addresses: Mail to Waterloo (above); email = [email protected]

A couple of years after Einstein formulated special relativity, Minkowski in a fa-

mous speech argued that time should be welded to space to form spacetime. The result is

a hybrid measure of separation, or interval, commonly called the Minkowski metric. It is

the basis of quantum mechanics. By extension to curved as opposed to flat spacetime, we

obtain a more complicated expression for the interval, which is the basis of cosmology.

However, between the small systems of quantum theory and the large ones of cosmology,

there are numerous others which can be adequately described by Newtonian mechanics

and also involve time. An ongoing debate, in both philosophy and physics, has to do

with the nature of time in its various applications. Especially: are the various usages of

time in physics and everyday life consistent with a unique definition for it? Alterna-

tively: while time occurs in many guises, what is the most useful way to view it at a

conceptual level? We hope in what follows to answer these and related questions by re-

examining the argument – espoused by Einstein, Eddington, Hoyle, Ballard and others –

that time is essentially a subjective ordering device.

In doing this, it will be necessary to debunk certain myths about time, and to clar-

ify statements that have been made about it. Certainly, time has been a puzzling concept

throughout history. For example, Newton in his Principia (Scholium I), stated that “Ab-

solute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably

without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration.” This sen-

tence is often quoted in the literature, and is widely regarded as being in opposition to the

nature of time as embodied later in relativity. However, prior to that sentence, Newton

2
also wrote about time and space that “… the common people conceive these quantities

under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects.” Thus Newton

was aware that the “common” people in the 1700s held a view of time and other physical

concepts which was essentially the same as the one used by Einstein, Minkowski, Poin-

caré and others in the 1900s as the basis for relativity.

As a property of relativity, it is unquestionably true that the time t can be consid-

ered as a physical dimension, on the same basis as our measures ( x y z ) of three-

dimensional space. The result is spacetime. In this, the time part involves the product of

t with the speed of light c, which essentially transforms the ‘distance’ along the time axis

to a length ct. Due to this, the interval is also a measure of which points are (or are not)

in contact via the exchange of photons. Those particles with real interval can be in con-

tact, while those with imaginary interval cannot be in contact.

This way of presenting Minkowski spacetime is conventional and familiar. How-

ever, it has a corollary which is not so familiar: particles with zero interval are coincident

in 4D. Einstein realized this, and it is the basis of his definition of simultaneity. But it is

not a situation which most people find easy to picture, so they decompose 4D spacetime

into 3D space and 1D time, and visualize a photon propagating through x y z over time t.

Eddington, the noted contemporary of Einstein, also appreciated the subjective nature of

the situation just described, and went on to argue that much of what is called objective in

physics is in fact subjective or invented. The speed of light was also commented on later

by a few deep thinkers such as McCrea and Hoyle, who regarded it as a mere man-made

constant. From the Eddington viewpoint, one can argue that the decomposition of 4D

3
Minkowski spacetime into separate 3D and 1D parts is a subjective act, so that in effect

the photon has been invented as a consequence of separating space and time.

Below, we will enlarge on the possibly subjective nature of physics, with an em-

phasis on the concept of time. We will in fact suggest that time is a subjective ordering

device, used by humans to make sense of their world. Several workers have expressed

this idea, including Einstein (1955 in Hoffmann 1972), Eddington (1928, 1939), Hoyle

(1963, 1966), Ballard (1984) and Wesson (2001). We hope to show that this approach

makes scientific sense, and from a common-day perspective has certain comforts.

Such an approach is, however, somewhat radical. So to motivate it, we wish to

give a critique of other, more mainstream views. This will be short, because good re-

views of the nature of time are available by many workers including Gold (1967), Davies

(1974), Whitrow (1980), McCrea (1986), Hawking (1988), Landsberg (1989), Zeh

(1992), Woodward (1995) and Halpern and Wesson (2006). We will discuss contending

views of the nature of time in Section 2, introduce what seems to be a better approach in

Section 3, and expand on the implications of this in Section 4. Although it is not essen-

tial, it will become apparent that our new approach to time is psychologically most

productive when the world is taken to have more dimensions than the four of spacetime,

in accordance with modern physics.

2. Physics and the Flow of Time

The idea that time flows from the past to the future, and that the reason for this

has something to do with the natural world, has become endemic to philosophy and phys-

4
ics. However, this idea is suspect. We will in this section examine briefly the three ways

in which the direction of time’s ‘arrow’ is commonly connected with physical processes,

and argue that they are all deficient. Quite apart from technical arguments, a little

thought will show that a statement such as the “flow of time”, despite being everyday us-

age, is close to nonsensical. For the phrase implies that time itself can be measured with

respect to another quantity of the same kind. This might be given some rational basis in a

multidimensional universe in which there is more than one time axis (see below); but the

everyday usage implies measuring the change of a temporal quantity against itself, which

is clearly a contradiction in terms. Such a sloppy use of words appears to be tolerated

because there is a widespread belief that the subjective, unidirectional nature of time can

be justified by more concrete, physical phenomena.

Entropy is a physical concept which figures in the laws of thermodynamics.

Strictly speaking, it is a measure of the number of possible states of a physical system.

But more specifically, it is a measure of the disorder in a system; and since disorder is

observed to increase in most systems as they evolve, the growth of entropy is commonly

taken as indicative of the passage of time. This connection was made by Eddington, who

also commented on the inverse relationship between information and entropy (Eddington

1928, 1939). However, the connection has been carried to an unreasonable degree by

some subsequent writers, who appear to believe that the passage of time is equivalent to

the increase of entropy. That this is not so can be seen by a simple counter-argument: If

it were true, each person could carry a badge that registered their entropy, and its meas-

urement would correlate with the time on a local clock. This is clearly daft.

5
 A more acceptable application of the notion of entropy might be found in the

many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. This was proposed by Everett

(1957), and supported as physically reasonable by De Witt (1970). In it, microscopic

systems bifurcate, and so define the direction of the future. In principle, this approach is

viable. However, the theory would be better couched in terms of a universe with more

than the four dimensions of spacetime; and interest in the idea of many worlds appears to

have lapsed, because there is no known way to validate or disprove their existence.

Another physical basis for the passage of time which has been much discussed

concerns the use of so-called retarded potentials in electromagnetism. The connection is

somewhat indirect, but can be illustrated by a simple case where light propagates from

one point to another. (This is what happens when humans apprehend things by the sense

of sight, and is also how most information is transmitted by modern technology.) Let the

signal be emitted at point P and observed at point O, where the distance between them is

d and is traversed at lightspeed c. Now Maxwell’s equations, which govern the interac-

tion, are symmetric in the time t. (We are assuming that the distance is small enough that

ordinary three-dimensional space can be taken as Euclidean or flat.) However, in order to

get the physics right, we have to use the electromagnetic potential not at time t but at the

retarded time (t-d/c). This is, of course, the time ‘corrected’ for the travel lag from the

point P of emission to the point O of observation. Such a procedure may appear logical;

but it has been pointed out by many thinkers that it automatically introduces a time

asymmetry into the problem (see Davies 1974 for an extensive review). The use of re-

tarded potentials, while they agree with observations, is made even more puzzling by the

6
fact that Maxwell’s equations are equally valid if use is made instead of the ‘advanced’

potentials defined at (t + d/c). In short, the underlying theory treats negative and positive

increments of time on the same footing, but the real world appears to prefer the solutions

where the past evolves to the future. Studies have been made of the symmetric case,

called Wheeler/Feynman electrodynamics, where both retarded and advanced potentials

are allowed. One argument for why we do not experience the signals corresponding to

the advanced potentials is that due to Hoyle and Narlikar (1974). They reasoned that the

advanced signals would be absorbed in certain types of cosmological model, leaving us

with a universe which is apparently asymmetric between the past and future. This expla-

nation is controversial, insofar as it appeals to unverified aspects of the large-scale

cosmos. On the small scale, it appears that the need for retarded potentials in electrody-

namics leads to a locally-defined arrow of time; though whether this is due to objective

physical reasons, or to some subjective bias on our part, remains obscure.

The big bang offers yet another way of accounting for the arrow of time. Accord-

ing to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, everything we observe came into existence

in a singularity at a specific epoch, which supernova data fix at approximately 13 x 109

years before the present. This description is familiar to all, and carries with it the impli-

cation that the universe in a dynamical sense has a preferred direction of evolution.

However, closer examination shows that it is really the recession of the galaxies from

each other, rather than the big bang, which identifies the time-sense of the universe’s evo-

lution. This was understood by Bondi (1952), who was one of the founders with Gold

and Hoyle of the steady-state theory. In it, matter is continuously created and condenses

7
to form new galaxies, whose average density is thereby maintained even though the

whole system is expanding. While no longer regarded as a practical cosmology, the

steady-state theory shows that it is the motions of galaxies which essentially defines a

preferred direction for time, rather than the (still poorly understood) processes by which

they may have formed after the big bang. Let us, in fact, temporarily forget about the lat-

ter event, and consider an ensemble of gravitating galaxies. Then there are in principle

only three modes of evolution: expansion, contraction and being static. The last can be

ruled out, because it is widely acknowledged that such a state, even if it existed, would be

unstable and tip into one of the other two modes. We are thus lead to the realization that

if the arrow of time is dictated by the dynamical evolution of the universe, its sense is

given a priori by a 50/50 choice analogous to flipping a cosmic coin. That is, there is no

dynamical reason for believing that events should go forward rather than backwards in

time. In addition to this, there is also the problem that there is no known physical process

which can transfer a cosmic effect on a lengthscale of 1018 cm down to a human one of

order 102 cm. In order to circumvent this objection, it has been suggested that the hu-

manly-perceived arrow of time is connected instead to smaller-scale astrophysics, such as

the nucleosynthesis of elements that determines the evolution of the Sun. This process

might, via the notion of entropy as discussed above, be connected to geophysical effects

on the Earth, and so to the biology of its human inhabitants. But it is really obvious,

when we pick apart the argument, that there is no discernable link between the mechanics

of the evolving universe and the sense of the passage of time which is experienced by

people.

8
 The preceding issues, to do with entropy, electrodynamics and cosmology, have

the unfortunate smell of speculation. Dispassionate thought reveals little convincing con-

nection between the time coordinate used in physics and the concept of age as used in

human biology. We can certainly imagine possible connections between physical and

human time, as for example in Einstein’s Dreams by Lightman (1993). There, the effects

of relativity such as time dilation are described in sociological contexts. But, there is a

large gap between the fluid manner in which time can be manipulated by the novelist and

the rigid transformations of time permitted to the physicist. Indeed, while the physicist

may be able to handle the “t” symbol in his equations with dexterity, he looks clumsy and

strained when he attempts to extend his theories to the practicality of everyday existence.

That is why the sayings about time by physicists mainly languish in obscurity, while

those by philosophers have wider usage.

In the latter category, we can consider the statement of Marcel Proust: “The

world was not created at the beginning of time. The world is created every day.” This

appears to dismiss the big bang, and by implication other parts of physics, as irrelevant to

the human experience of time. However, it is more rewarding to consider statements like

the foregoing as pointed challenges to the physicist. To be specific: Is there a view of

“time” which is compatible with the rather narrow usage of the word in physics, and yet

in agreement with the many ways in which the concept is experienced by people?

9
3. Time as a Subjective Ordering Device

The differing roles which time plays in physics and everyday life has led some

workers to the conclusion that it is a subjective concept. Let us consider the following

quotes:

Einstein (as reported by Hoffman): “For us believing physicists the distinction be-

tween past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one.”

Eddington: “General scientific considerations, favour the view that our feeling of

the going on of time is a sensory impression; that is to say, it is as closely connected with

stimuli from the physical world as the sensation of light is. Just as certain physical dis-

turbances entering the brain cells via the optic nerves occasion the sensation of light, so a

change of entropy … occasions the sensation of time succession, the moment of greater

entropy being felt to be the later.”

Hoyle: “All moments of time exist together.” “There is no such thing as ‘waiting’

for the future.” “It could be that when we make subjective judgments we’re using con-

nections that are non-local … there is a division, the world divides into two, into two

completely disparate stacks of pigeon holes.”

Ballard: “Think of the world as a simultaneous structure. Everything that’s ever

happened, all the events that will ever happen, are taking place together.” “It’s possible

to imagine that everything is happening at once, all the events ‘past’ and ‘future’ which

constitute the universe are taking place together. Perhaps our sense of time is a primitive

mental structure that we inherited from our less intelligent forbears.”

10
 The preceding four opinions about time have an uncanny similarity, given that

they apparently originate independently of each other. However, they are all compatible

with Eddington’s view of science, wherein certain concepts of physics are not so much

discovered as invented (see Wesson 2000 for a short review). The subjective nature of

time is also compatible with current views of particle physics and cosmology, wherein

several worlds exist alongside each other (Everett 1957, De Witt 1970, Penrose 1989,

Wesson 2006, Petkov 2007). It is important to realize that there need not be anything

mystical about this approach. For example, Hoyle considers a 4D world of the usual type

with time and space coordinates t and x y z which define a surface φ (t , x y z ) = C . Here

C is a parameter which defines a subset of points in the world. Changing C changes the

subset, and “We could be said to live our lives through changes of C.” In other words,

the life of a person can be regarded as the consequence of some mechanism which picks

out sets of events for him to experience.

What such a mechanism might be is obscure. Hoyle speculated that the mecha-

nism might involve known physical fields such as electromagnetism, which is the basis of

human brain functions. It might plausibly involve quantum phenomena, amplified to

macroscopic levels by the brain in the manner envisaged by Penrose (1989). However,

while the precise mechanism is unknown, some progress can be made in a general way

by noting that Hoyle’s C-equation above is an example of what in relativity is known as a

hypersurface. This is the relation one obtains when one cuts through a higher-

dimensional manifold, defining thereby the usual 4D world we know as spacetime. It is

11
in fact quite feasible that the Minkowski spacetime of our local experience is just a slice

through a world of more than 4 dimensions.

In fact, higher dimensions are the currently popular way to unify gravity with the

interactions of particle physics, and reviews of the subject are readily available (e.g.,

Wesson 2006 from the physical side and Petkov 2007 from the philosophical side). Since

we are here mainly interested in the concept of time, let us concentrate on one exact solu-

tion of the theory for the simplest case when there is only a single extra dimension. (See

Wesson 1999 for a compendium of higher-dimensional solutions including the one exam-

ined here.) Let us augment the time (t) and the coordinates of Euclidean space (x y z) by

an extra length (l). Then by solving the analog of Einstein’s equations of general relativ-

ity in 5D, the interval between two nearby points can be written

dS 2 = l 2 dt 2 − l 2 exp i (ωt + k x x )dx 2 − l 2 exp i (ωt + k y y )dy 2 − l 2 exp i (ωt + k z z )dz 2 + L2 dl 2 . (1)

Here ω is a frequency, kx etc. are wave numbers and L measures the size of the extra di-

mension. This equation, while it may look complicated, has some very informative

aspects: (a) it describes a wave, in which parts of what are commonly called space can

come into and go out of existence; (b) it can be transformed by a change of coordinates to

a flat manifold, so what looks like a space with structure is equivalent to one that is fea-

tureless; (c) the signature is + – – – +, so the extra coordinate acts like a second time.

These properties allow of some inferences relevant to the present discussion: (a) even

ordinary 3D space can be ephemeral; (b) a space may have structure which is not intrinsic

but a result of how it is described; (c) there is no unique way to identify time.

12
 This last property is striking. It means that in grand-unified theories for the forces

of physics, the definition of time may be ambiguous. This classical result confirms the

inference from quantum theory, where the statistical interaction of particles can lead to

thermodynamic arrows of time for different parts of the universe which are different or

even opposed (Shulman 1997, 2000). It should be noted that the existence of more than

one ‘time’ is not confined to 5D relativity, but also occurs in other N-dimensional ac-

counts such as string theory (Bars et al. 1999). Indeed, there can in principle be many

time-like coordinates in an N-dimensional metric.

In addition, the definition of time may be altered even in the standard 4D version

of general relativity by a coordinate transformation. (This in quantum field theory is fre-

quently called a gauge choice.) The reason is that Einstein’s field equations are set up in

terms of tensors, in order to ensure their applicability to any system of coordinates. This

property, called covariance, is widely regarded as essential for any modern theory of

physics. However, if we wish to have equations which are valid irrespective of how we

choose the coordinates, then we perforce have to accept the fact that time and space are

malleable. Indeed, covariance even allows us to mix the time and space labels. Given the

principle of covariance, it is not hard to see why physicists have abandoned the unique

time label of Newton, and replaced it by the ambiguous one of Einstein.

We are led to the realization that the concept of time is as much a puzzle to the

physicist as it is to the philosopher. Paradoxically, the average person in the street

probably feels more comfortable about the issue than those who attempt to analyse it.

13
However, it is plausible that time in its different guises is a device used by people to or-

ganize their existence, and as such is at least partially subjective in character.

4. Mathematics and Reality

In the foregoing, we saw that several deep thinkers have arrived independently at

a somewhat intriguing view of time. To paraphrase them: time is a stubborn illusion

(Einstein), connected with human sensory impressions (Eddington), so that all moments

of time exist together (Hoyle), with the division between past and future merely a hold-

over from our primitive ancestors (Ballard). Perhaps the most trenchant opinion is that of

Hoyle (1966), who summarizes the situation thus: “There’s one thing quite certain in this

business. The idea of time as a steady progression from past to future is wrong. I know

very well we feel this way about it subjectively. But we’re all victims of a confidence

trick. If there’s one thing we can be sure about in physics, it is that all times exist with

equal reality”

This view of time can be put on a physical basis. We imagine that each person’s

experiences are a subset of points in spacetime, defined technically by a hypersurface in a

higher-dimensional world, and that a person’s life is represented by the evolution of this

hypersurface. This is admittedly difficult to visualize. But we can think of existence as a

vast ocean whose parts are all connected, but across which a wave runs, its breaking crest

precipitating our experiences.

A mathematical model for a wave in five dimensions was actually considered in

the preceding section as Equation (1). It should be noted that there is nothing very spe-

14
cial about the dimensionality, and that it is unclear how many dimensions are required to

adequately explain all of known physics. The important thing is that if we set the interval

to zero, to define a world whose parts are connected in higher dimensions, then we neces-

sarily obtain the hypersurface which defines experience in the lower-dimensional world.

It is interesting to note that the behaviour of that hypersurface depends critically on the

number of plus and minus signs in the metric (i.e., on the signature). In the canonical ex-

tension of Einstein’s theory of general relativity from four to five dimensions, the

hypersurface has two possible behaviours. Let us express the hypersurface generally as a

length, which depends on the interval of spacetime s, or equivalently on what physicists

call the proper time (which is the time of everyday existence corrected to account for

things like the motion). Then the two possible behaviours for the hypersurface may be

written

l = lo exp( s / L) and l = lo exp(is / L) . (2)

Here lo is a fiducial value of the extra coordinate, L is the length which defines the size of

the fifth dimension, and s is the aforementioned interval or proper time. The two noted

behaviours describe, respectively, a growing mode and an oscillating mode. The differ-

ence between the two modes depends on the signature of the metric, and is indicated by

the absence or presence of i ≡ − 1 in the usual manner. So far, the analysis follows the

basic idea about experience due to Hoyle but expressed in the language of hypersurfaces

as discussed by Wesson (see Hoyle and Hoyle 1963, Wesson 2006). However, it is pos-

sible to go further, and extend the analysis into the metaphysical domain for those so

inclined. This by virtue of a change from the growing mode to the oscillatory mode, with

15
the identification of the former with a person’s material life and the latter with a person’s

spiritual life. That is, we obtain a simple model wherein existence is described by a hy-

persurface in a higher-dimensional world, with two modes of which one is growing and is

identified with corporeal life, and one is wave-like and is identified with the soul, the two

modes separated by an event which is commonly called death.

Whether one believes in a model like this which straddles physics and spirituality

is up to the individual. (In this regard, the author is steadfastly neutral.) However, it is

remarkable that such a model can even be formulated, bridging as it does realms of ex-

perience which have traditionally been viewed as immutably separate. Even if one stops

part way through the above analysis, it is clear that the concept of time may well be an

illusion. This in itself should be sufficient to comfort those who fear death, which should

rather be viewed as a phase change than an endpoint.

5. Conclusion

Time is an exceptionally puzzling thing, because people experience it in different

ways. It can be formalized, using the speed of light, as a coordinate on par with the coor-

dinates of ordinary three-dimensional space. But while spacetime is an effective tool for

the physicist, this treatment of time seems sterile to the average person, and does not ex-

plain the origin of time as a concept. There are shortcomings in purely physical

explanations of time and its apparent flow, be they from entropy, many-worlds, electro-

magnetism or the big bang. Such things seem too abstract and remote to adequately

explain the individual’s everyday experience of time. Hence the suggestion that time is a

16
subjective ordering device, invented by the human mind to make sense of its perceived

world.

This idea, while not mainstream, has occurred to several thinkers. These include

the philosopher Proust, the scientists Einstein, Eddington and Hoyle, and the novelist

Ballard. It is noteworthy that the idea appears to have its genesis independently with

these people. And while basically psychological in nature, it is compatible with certain

approaches in physics, notably Penrose’s suggestion that the human brain may be a kind

of amplification organ for turning tiny, quantum-mechanical effects into measurable,

macroscopic ones. The idea of time as an ordering device was given a basis in the phys-

ics of relativity by Hoyle, who however only sketched the issue, arguing that the

movement of a hypersurface would effectively provide a model for the progress of a per-

son’s life. This approach can be considerably developed, as outlined above, if we assume

that the experience-interface is related to a 4D hypersurface in a 5(or higher)D world.

Then it is possible to write down an equation for the hypersurface, which can have an

evolutionary and an oscillatory phase, which might (if a person is so inclined) be identi-

fied with the materialistic and spiritual modes of existence. Perhaps more importantly, in

this 5D approach, the interval (or ‘separation’) between points is zero, so all of the events

in the world are in (5D) causal contact. In other words, everything is occurring simulta-

neously.

That this picture may be difficult to visualize just bolsters the need for something

like the concept of time, which can organize the simultaneous sense data into a compre-

hensible order.

17
 Time, viewed in this manner, is akin to the three measures of ordinary space, at

least insofar as how the brain works. Humans have binocular vision, which enables them

to judge distances. This is an evolutionary, biological trait. Certain other hunting ani-

mals, like wolves, share it. By comparison, a rabbit has eyes set into the sides of its head,

so while it can react well to an image that might pose a threat, it cannot judge distance

well. But even a human with good vision finds it increasingly difficult to judge the rela-

tive positions of objects at great distance: the world takes on a two-dimensional

appearance, like a photograph, or a landscape painting. In the latter, a good artist will use

differing degrees of shade and detail to give an impression of distance, as for example

when depicting a series of hills and valleys which recede to the horizon. Likewise, the

human brain uses subtle clues to do with illumination and resolution to form an opinion

about the relative spacing of objects at a distance. This process is learned, and not per-

fectly understood by physiologists and psychologists; but is of course essential to the

adequate functioning of an adult person in his or her environment. Astronomers have

long been aware of the pitfalls of trying to assess the distances of remote objects. Tradi-

tionally, they measured offsets in longitude and latitude by means of two angles indicated

by the telescope, called right ascension and declination. But they had no way of directly

measuring the distances along the line of sight, and so referred to their essentially 2D

maps as being drawn on the surface of an imaginary surface called the celestial sphere.

Given such a limited way of mapping, it was very hard to decide if two galaxies seen

close together on the sky were physically close or by chance juxtaposed along the line of

sight. In lieu of a direct method of distance determination, astronomers fell back on

18
probability arguments to decide (say) if two galaxies near to each other on a photographic

plate were really tied together by gravity, or merely the result of a coincidental proximity

in 2D while being widely separated in 3D. The situation changed drastically when tech-

nological advances made it easier to measure the redshifts of galaxies, since the redshift

of a source could be connected via Hubble’s law to the physical distance along the line of

sight. Thus today, combining angular measurements for longitude and latitude with red-

shifts for outward distance, astronomers have fairly good 3D maps of the distribution of

galaxies in deep space.

In effect, astronomers have managed to replace the photograph (which is essen-

tially 2D) by the hologram (which provides information in 3D). However, whether this is

done for a cluster of galaxies or a family portrait, the process of evaluating distance is a

relatively complicated one. The human brain evaluates 3D separations routinely, and we

are not usually aware of any conscious effort in doing so. But this apparently mundane

process is also a complicated one. If we take it that the concept of time is similar to the

concept of space, it is hardly surprising that the human brain has evolved its own subtle

way of handling ‘separations’ along the time axis of existence.

Thus the idea of time as a kind of subjective ordering device, by which we make

sense of a simultaneous world, appears quite natural.

References

Ballard, J.G., 1984. Myths of the Near Future. Triad-Panther, London.

Bars, I., Deliduman, C., Minic, D., 1999. Phys. Rev. D 59, 125004.

19
Bondi, H., 1952. Cosmology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Davies, P.C.W., 1974. The Physics of Time Asymmetry. University of California Press,

Berkeley.

De Witt, B.S., 1970. Phys. Today 23 (9), 30.

Eddington, A.S. 1928. The Nature of the Physical World. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Eddington, A.S., 1939. The Philosophy of Physical Science. Macmillan, New York.

Everett, H., 1957. Rev. Mod. Phy. 29, 454.

Gold, T. (ed.), 1967. The Nature of Time. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.

Halpern, P., Wesson, P.S., 2006. Brave New Universe. J. Henry Press, Washington.

Hawking, S.W., 1988. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Press, New York.

Hoffmann, B., 1972. Albert Einstein, Creator and Rebel. New American Lib., New York.

Hoyle, F., 1966. October the First is Too Late. Fawcett-Crest, Greenwich, Conn.

Hoyle, F., Hoyle, G., 1963. Fifth Planet. Heinemann, London.

Hoyle, F., Narlikar, J.V., 1974. Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology. Free-

man, San Francisco.

Landsberg, P.T., 1989. In Physics in the Making (Sarlemijn, A., Sparnaay, M. J., eds.).

Elsevier, Amsterdam, 131.

Lightman, A., 1993. Einstein’s Dreams. Random House, New York.

McCrea, W.H., 1986. Quart. J. Royal Astron. Soc. 27, 137.

Petkov, V. (ed.), 2007. Relativity and the Dimensionality of the World. Springer, Berlin.

Penrose, R., 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

20
Shulmann, L.S., 1997. Time’s Arrow and Quantum Measurement. Cambridge Univer-

sity Press, Cambridge.

Shulman, L.S., 2000. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 897.

Wesson, P.S., 1999. Space, Time, Matter. World Scientific, Singapore.

Wesson, P.S., 2000. Observatory 120 (1154), 59. Ibid., 2001, 121 (1161), 82.

Wesson, P.S., 2006. Five-Dimensional Physics. World Scientific, Singapore.

Whitrow, G.J., 1980. The Natural Philosophy of Time. Oxford University Press, Ox-

ford.

Woodward, J.F., 1995. Found. Phys. Lett. 8, 1.

Zeh, H.-D., 1992. The Physical Basis of Time. Springer, Berlin.

21