Theories of Relativity and Consciousness

Summary: This study aims to analyze the philosophical (materialists, dualists and idealists) explanation of consciousness and its consistency with a major current physical theory: Theories of Relativity (Special and General).

1. Introduction

The problem of consciousness today occupies one of the most important points to be clarified by philosophy and science. By its nature, there is no consensus among both philosophical, as in science, with respect to its explanation.

The main philosophical position today are : materialistic, where consciousness is explained as a result of neural processes or as an illusion generated by brain processes (so called deniers); dualistic, which considers consciousness independently of matter and which postulates that consciousness is a fundamental entity of the universe (as fundamental as space-time and matter) and idealist, who believes consciousness as the basis of all physical existence.

1. Theories of Relativity

2.1 Special Theory of Relativity

The Special Theory of Relativity “breaks” the objective flow of time. The Rietdjek-Putnam argument and The Andromeda Paradox (an advanced form of Rietdjek-Putnam argument, proposed by Roger Penrose) tells us that, if the Special Relativity Theory is true, then each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity, which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment.

Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity hence different sets of events that are present. Each observer considers their set of present events to be a three-dimensional universe, but even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three-dimensional universes to have differing content. If each three-dimensional universe exists, then the existence of multiple three-dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four-dimensional, and we live in a “Block Universe”; a 4D universe where time is just another dimension.

Einstein himself said that the distinction between past, present, and future is a persistent illusion, an illusion that comes from our perception.

2.2 General Theory of Relativity

According Damour (2010) "General relativity has opened the door to an even deeper twist of the ordinary concept of time. However, the most popular treatments of science have a tendency, when speaking of General Relativity (GR), and especially when describing relativistic cosmological models (inflation, Big Bang), to use language that suggests that the GR reintroduces the notion of temporal flow, which had been abolished in Special Relativity.

Far from it. The GR space-time is as timeless as the Especial Relativity. The Big Bang should not be referred as the birth of the universe and its creation "ex nihilo" but as one of the possible limits of a strongly deformed (and timeless ) block of space-time (Block Universe).

Far from reintroducing the notion of temporal flow, the infinite variety of possible Einsteinian cosmological models furnish some striking examples of conceivable “worlds” where the unreality of this flow becomes palpable. For example, one can imagine a spacetime containing both big bangs (i.e. “lower” boundaries) and big crunches (“upper” boundaries), and such that the privileged “arrow of time” defi- ned by the gradient of entropy in the vicinity of these various spacetime boundaries is, for each boundary, directed towards the interior of the spacetime (as it is for the boundary of our spacetime that is conventionally called “the Big Bang”).”

Both Theories of Relativity describe a 4D universe, where time must be understood not as a constant flux, but as an additional dimension.

1. Theories of Relativity and the Philosophical Schools of Counsciouness

The materialists consider consciousness as a result of neural processes. The possibility of consciousness as a result of one or more processes in the brain has as an implicit assumption (necessary condition): the physical existence of the flow of time. Because, if the flow of time does not physically exist then, we have no existence of physical processes and, consequently, we have no consciousness being "produced" or emerging from this processes.

From the above, we can conclude that:

1. The "materialistic hypothesis" of consciousness emerging from brain processes is fully consistent with a "Newtonian Universe." A universe in construction, where the existence of processes is required, and the physical existence of the flow of time allows these processes to exist.

So, in a “Newtonian Universe”, where space and time are absolute, and the flow of time is a physical reality, the explanation of consciousness as a result of a brain process is totally consistent with this reality, where time flows and process occur.

1. If we accept the premise that the Theories of Relativity are correct about the lack of the flow of time, then all philosophical position that hypothesize consciousness as a result of one or more neural processes should be considered incorrect, because are premised on a reality incompatible with the reality described by the Theories of Relativity (TR).

In this case, we have only two hypotheses to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. The idealistic and dualistic (discussed below).

Occam's Razor warns us not to multiply entities of a model than necessary. However, assuming as a premise that the TR are correct about the lack of the flow of time, and about the "Block Universe", We have theories that are not sufficient to explain the conscious experience. In this case, it becomes legitimate to postulate another entity, so that we can have a model that can deal not only with the description of our physical universe, but also with our own first-person experience, which leads to the perception of the flow of time.

Thus, if we postulate that consciousness is another fundamental entity in our universe, which interact with the "Einstein Universe " without interfering in it, we have as a result a hypothesis of conciousness that is compatible with the reality described by GR, which also explains why we perceive the flow of time and changes along the "Block Universe".

In this case, we can think of consciousness and its relation to the "Block Universe" similar to a video game, a game, and a hard drive. Just as the game exists as a whole, together with the hard drive, and its sequencing is the result of the interaction of the reader with the HD, we can consider that the spacetime contains the whole of our history (and in a sense, our immortality), and assume that the illusion of the flow of time refers to the stream of consciousness "through" space-time, this flow allows us to experience our story sequentially and always forward in time.

This hypothesis maintains compatibility with the TR however, we have to give up totally our free will, since all our past, present and future are already determined.

Sean Carroll, in the paper “The Flow of Time” says that “Modern physics suggests that we can look at the entire history of the universe as a single four-dimensional thing. That includes our own personal path through it, which defines our world line. This seemingly conflicts with our intuitive idea that we exist at a moment, and move through time. Of course there is no real conflict — just two different ways of looking at the same thing. There is a four-dimensional universe that includes all of our world line, from birth to death, once and for all; and each moment along that world line defines an instantaneous person with the perception that they are growing older, advancing through time.”

I don’t deny Seans claim in what I am proposing, that for every position in the space-time we are aware of the "present moment" and the "moments before". The problem is: what makes us walk through these moments, so we constantly forward in time.

His argument doesn’t addresses this question, and brings another problem: as he considers the existence of instantaneous awareness, consciousness - through a "materialist" explanation – is no longer the result of a brain process, and become a state. Because even with nothing happening (impulses coming and going in our brain), consciousness is still there, frozen in the “Block Universe”.

But if the illusion of time flow is the result of the flow of consciousness through a “frozen” space-time, them we can satisfactory explain the instantaneous awareness, and our movement forward in time.

Conclusion

Considering as a premise that the TR are correct about the inexistence of time flow, then the whole “materialist” explanation of consciousness is necessarily wrong, due to the incompatibility between the reality which it needs to be correct, and the reality described by the TR.

The price we have to pay to have a dualistic explanation for consciousness compatible with the TR is the total absence of free will.

References :

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk%E2%80%93Putnam_argument

(The Flow of Time – BBC 1999)

(The Ilusion of Time – PBS)