hsf@hlexa.UUCP (09/26/83)
AN AFTERLIFE? CHILDISH FAIRY TALES! After all, consciousness depends
only upon the brain. But wait...Science has shown that the flow of
time is a subjective reality--that the past "still" exists.
"Time Twins, a nonsupernatural concept of survival after death," by
Henry Friedman, explains how time itself ensures our survival--in the
future as well as the past.
Reply by mail if you are interested in the above manuscript for the
revised and enlarged second edition of the above book. If
enough interest is shown, portions of it can be electronically published
on this net (in short installments). A table of contents and capsule
outline is included below. The concept includes some parapsychology,
e.g., telepathy and synchronicity, which some might find of dubious
worth, but large portions of the book are fairly soundly based in modern
physics.
Introduction
1. Is Yesterday Really Gone?
Two opposing philosophies of time. The meaning of time as the fourth
dimension. Free will, determinism, and the "many worlds" concept of
quantum physics.
2. What a Coincidence--
Jung's concept of meaningful coincidences (synchronicity). Explanations
of meaningful coincidences from modern physics. Archetypal dreams
and images. The relationship of synchronicity to such paranormal
phenomena as the "I Ching" and astrology. The cyclical view of time.
3. --There You are Again!
"Reincarnation experiences" explained as mental communication through
time between different persons with like personalities: the concept of
time twins. The predictability of time twins by synchronicity.
4. Whispers in Time
Additional support for precognition, telepathy, etc., from quantum
physics and astrophysics. Unconscious mental communication among time
twins. Can time twins be considered a type of survival after death?
A paradox: different persons, yet the same person.
5. So What's New?
New models of reality relegate former "truths" to the role of figurative
constructs. If this process, so natural in the physical sciences, is
thwarted in the domain of religion by blind literalism, we are
eventually deprived of our faith. Multiple realities and the mythic
dimension.
6. "Who Knows Where or When?"
Do the ideas treated in this book offer any hope for a reunion with
our loved ones after death? The psychology of coping with change.
The idea of belonging to a particular period of time.
7. Gathering Data
Some suggestions for experiments to test the hypotheses presented in
this book. An explanation of the "twins clock paradox" of special
relativity and its relationship to the possibility of time travel.
8. A New Heritage
A summary of the ideas presented to this point. New significance for
the role of the individual. Two opposing models of the "end of time."
A new type of data bank.
9. Ghosts, Mediums, and the Astral Plane
Suppositions concerning other areas of the paranormal, based upon
the ideas about time discussed earlier. Interpenetrating universes
and multiple pasts.
10. The Arrow of Time
Does time really flow? A clear explanation for the layman of a
complex subject (motion picture analogies are used for ease of under-
standing). How humankind participates in the very process of creation.
Zeno and Parmenides: the two sages from Elea. Some cosmological
implications of time.
11. Another Type of Picture, Another Type of Wave
Paranormal ramifications of the holographic process of photography
and Pribram's holographic model of human memory. The concept of
"synchronicity waves." Is there a super-reality, from which all other
realities are, as it were, projected?
12. In Your Spirit's Spirit
The mechanism of our survival in the perpetual past via infinite waves
of consciousness rippling across time. Is there a transfer of aware-
ness into the past at death? Parallels are then drawn between Jung's
description of the many different meanings of the word "spirit" and
the concepts of immortality discussed in this book. The power of the
mythic dimension of life.
13. A Scene from the Future
Some implications for religion and philosophy of rapid advances in
artificial intelligence.
14. Reflections from Warped Time
The humorous side of a profound subject.
15. Time: God's Monument to Man
Concluding meditation, tinged with personal nostalgia for my lost
childhood and college years. Time and the search for a purposeful
universe.
--- Henry Friedman (the author)
hsf@hlexa.UUCP (10/13/83)
(c) Copyright 1983 by Henry Friedman
(Copying for personal use by users of net is authorized.)
Is Yesterday Really Gone? (continued)
There is an analogy that is often used to describe our ina-
bility, as three-dimensional creatures, to fully comprehend
a four-dimensional universe. We are asked to imagine the
plight of hypothetical two-dimensional creatures living in,
as they see it, a flat, two-dimensional world. Physicists
and mathematicians belonging to this flat world might some-
day discover that there was a wider, three-dimensional real-
ity. They might even describe such a universe of three-
dimensional cubes and spheres, etc., mathematically, but
they would be unable to fully visualize such strange
objects.
The closest the two-dimensional creatures could come to
visualizing a cube would be as a series of separate squares;
they might see a sphere as a series of circles. Analo-
gously, we, as three-dimensional creatures, can only visual-
ize four-dimensional spacetime as a series of separate
events.
One element of a four-dimensional universe that might dis-
turb many is its apparent determinism. If future events
already exist, what would be the meaning of saying that we
have free will?
There are several different ways to address such questions.
Some philosophers say that the question of determinism
versus free will is not decided one way or the other by the
idea of a four-dimensional universe. For "determinism"
means not only that a future event is fixed, or definite,
but also that it could be definitely predicted *in the
present* if enough of the causal details were known. In
other words, determinism is the traditional idea in
Newtonian physics of a "clockwork universe," whose every
condition is inexorably dictated by its "initial condi-
tions." In such a clockwork universe causality would reign
supreme.
However, the concept of a deterministic, clockwork world has
been largely discredited by quantum mechanics, which has
shown that the behavior of subatomic particles is essen-
tially random. The further implication is that such random-
ness may also apply to much of the larger world of everyday
reality. So one could argue that the proper term for the
state of future events in a world of four-dimensional space-
time is "determinateness" (definiteness), not "determinism"
(clockwork causality).
Others would add that questions about free will are essen-
tially meaningless, anyway. For whether or not we actually
have free will, we have no choice but to act as if we do.
All of the above arguments notwithstanding, some of us might
be deeply disturbed by the idea that our futures are com-
pletely decided. And there is still another possible
interpretation of the future in a four-dimensional universe
that is neither determinate nor deterministic. Physicist
Paul Davies ("Other Worlds") and science writer Gary Zukav
("The Dancing Wu Li Masters") describe a new concept that
has arisen as one possible explanation for some of the para-
doxes inherent in quantum theory: the concept of "many
worlds," also called "parallel universes" or "alternative
possibilities."
In quantum mechanics, the random paths and behavior of suba-
tomic particles are described by mathematical equations that
give the probabilities for the possible ways a particle can
act (Schroedinger wave equations). In the conventional
interpretation of these equations, the actual observation of
a particular path for a particle causes the alternative pos-
sible paths to "collapse" into non-existence. In contrast,
the concept of parallel universes states that every possible
path continues to exist -- in a separate branch of the
universe!
(This chapter to be concluded in Part 3.)hsf@hlexa.UUCP (Henry Friedman) (10/17/83)
(c) Copyright 1983 by Henry Friedman
(Copying for personal use by users of net is authorized.)
Is Yesterday Really Gone? (conclusion)
In his book "Timewarps," astrophysicist John Gribbin
explains that he prefers this new concept of parallel
universes because it restores the meaning of free will. The
concept, in effect, adds a fifth dimension to the four
dimensions of spacetime, i.e., the dimension of alternate
possibilities. In the photographic analogy, we could com-
pare the four-dimensional concept of the universe to a sin-
gle long reel of film. In contrast, the five-dimensional
universe of alternate possibilities would be compared to
many reels of film. At each point of choice of action (or
possibility of diverse random paths), the film would branch
into new films, one for each possible outcome, just as film
makers sometimes now shoot for different possible endings.
For example, in one universe, at a given place and time,
there might be an unspoiled meadowland. In a parallel
universe at the corresponding place, there might be a busy
airport, a result of different decisions by government and
developers. Key portions of the concepts to be developed in
this book hinge largely upon parallel universes. So I will
again stress the point that, although the idea has not been
proved, it is a serious hypothesis arising from advances in
quantum physics -- not merely an invention of science fan-
tasy writers.
In the novel "Slaughterhouse-Five," by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.,
based upon the World War II fire-bombing of Dresden, the
hero bounces randomly backward and forward in time among
different events of his life, including his death. At each
point of his re-emergence, he fully "remembers" the entire
fabric of his life, past and future. Although he knows how
and when he will die, he also believes in his immortality,
since no moment of his life ever ceases to exist.
Now, you might object that such ideas are fine for novels,
but that nothing in science, including relativity, states
that we can travel into the past. In relativity jargon, the
path of an object through spacetime is called its "world
line," and in spacetime diagrams, the world line of an
object always travels forward in time. So what is the mean-
ing, one might ask, of saying the past still exists if it
cannot be reached. Such questions will be discussed more
fully in later chapters, as the full concept is developed.
But for now, I'd like you to try another mental experiment.
Look at a photograph of a deceased friend or relative, not a
studio portrait, but one showing him or her in a familiar,
natural setting. As you gaze at the picture, the person may
seem so alive and vital that you have to remind yourself
that he is dead, and that the happy time when the picture
was taken is gone forever. But instead of concentrating on
that cold reality, pretend, for a moment, that the scene and
time of the photograph still exists -- "some-when" --
and that the person is really still just as alive in that
time as he seems in the picture. Perhaps you'll find, even
if only for a moment, that the idea rings true.
Of course, mental experiments like the one above prove noth-
ing (though they may convey the flavor of some of the ideas
in this book). And even if such a concept of spacetime were
true, we could not form a very satisfying hypothesis for
immortality on that basis alone: one lifetime, frozen in
time, with no possibility for further development, would
hardly constitute immortality, as we usually think of the
meaning of the word.
No, there are other components to be introduced and
developed before the concept is complete. And it is hoped
that the whole will prove to be more than just the sum of
its parts.
End of Chapter
(This series of excerpts to be continued in Part 4. Comments
and criticisms by mail are welcome at any time. I may not
be able to reply to each comment individually, but all com-
ments will be carefully considered. When there is silence,
I begin to wonder whether anyone is still reading this
series of articles!)hsf@hlexa.UUCP (10/25/83)
(c) Copyright 1983 by Henry Friedman
(Copying for personal use by users of net is authorized.)
The Arrow of Time
As stated in Part 2, we are, as it were, three-dimensional
creatures living in a four-dimensional world. We see the
world changing, things moving, time flowing from present
into future. Yet the new reality of spacetime suggests that
such appearances are an illusion, that everything is
"already there," statically arrayed in spacetime.
Let's return to the motion picture analogy to help clarify
these two opposing views of reality. Imagine that we have
unrolled the reels of film from a long movie onto the floor
of a gymnasium, laying the film in a spiral around the
floor. Then, imagine that we have climbed onto a raised
platform in the center of the gym, with a very powerful pair
of binoculars, from where we can see all of the frames
spread out before us. The movie frames can be compared to a
portion of our universe, spread out in time.
Since we can choose any single frame of our movie and call
it "now," past and future on the film are merely relative
directions, not specific sections of film. All frames in
one direction from the frame we selected as "now" represent
the past, and all the frames in the opposite direction along
the strip represent the future. If we became disoriented
and forgot which direction was which along the spiraling
strip, we could easily verify it. We could use our binocu-
lars to search for any type of event in the movie that would
be nonreversible in everyday life. For example, if we saw
in one frame that a character in the movie was in a swimming
pool and, as we followed along the strip, he or she rose
from the water and eventually landed on a diving board, we
would know that we had been moving along the strip in a
direction toward the past.
If we picked a frame, examined it and then looked at another
frame, far enough from the first, we would notice that peo-
ple or things had *moved* or *changed*. However, if we then
cut out several of such frames in which change was notice-
able, placed them in front of us and looked at them all at
once, nothing would really seem to be *moving* or *chang-
ing*, in the everyday sense of time: everything would just
be "already there," all at once. But if we were then to run
a strip of the film through a movie projector and view it,
the everyday sense of time would immediately return. People
and things in our movie would again seem to be moving and
changing and becoming in time. And time would *flow* again,
as the point of time called the present continually became
the past, and the future revealed itself as the present.
And that is our everyday view of time: not a four-
dimensional continuum, but merely a measure of the continual
processes of change (relative to processes that appear *uni-
form*, such as the rotation of the earth on its axis or
around the sun, or the vibrations of atoms in a crystal).
Gary Zukav ("The Dancing Wu Li Masters") compares our lim-
ited, everyday view of time to viewing spacetime through a
narrow slit in a piece of cardboard. It is if the cardboard
were moving to reveal only the single moment of time that
lay behind the slit. This is like our motion picture pass-
ing in front of the projector aperture, one frame at a time.
But why is this so? Why *are* we limited to seeing time as
a flow of changes? Musn't the "arrow of time" be, after
all, embedded in the fundamental reality of our universe?
The philosopher of the "manifold" would agree that there is
an arrow, as far as the aspect of *direction* is concerned,
but not that the arrow *moves*. We know that time is not
the same in all directions, as evidenced by the law of
entropy (the diffusion of energy always increases) and by
nonreversible causal processes. The probability is very low
that a dynamited building will reconstruct itself or that
all the molecules of perfume will ever return to the bottle.
But the fact that time has direction does not require that
it *flow*.
In everyday reality, however, things move and change in
time. So doesn't there have to be something unique about
that ever-moving point of time that we call "now," the only
point of time that we ever seem to experience?
Adolf Gruenbaum addresses the above questions in his book
"Philosophical Problems of Space and Time." Drawing upon
the work of the philosopher H. Bergmann, he writes that the
commonsense, everyday experience of time as a flow of
events -- as distinct from the reality of a spacetime
continuum -- is entirely a product of the consciousness of
sentient organisms. He adds that the idea of "now" has no
basis in reality apart from the significance imparted by
such conscious experiences. In other words, it is not
*time* that flows; rather, *conscious awareness* flows, as
it were, through time, giving time the appearance of motion.
Our conscious awareness serves as the motion picture projec-
tor, if you will, that makes the film strips of time come to
life -- that limits us to a three-dimensional view of
reality. Our consciousness acts like the crest of a "vir-
tual wave" of awareness moving through time. Of course, no
mystical connotation is intended regarding mind or cons-
ciousness: all of the various brain states and sensory
information which underlie our consciousness must, also, be
"already there," arrayed in spacetime. Our subjective
experience is as if our conscious awareness rippled through
these brain states in a serial order.
(This chapter to be continued in part 5.)hsf@hlexa.UUCP (11/03/83)
Someone from Rutgers has strongly objected to this series continuing on sf-lovers, and there has been little other response from this newsgroup. Judging from my mail, users of net.books and net.philosophy want the series to continue. So interested readers are referred to those newsgroups for the balance of the series. Henry Friedman