Below is an excerpt from our Lost in Space and Time newsletter. Every month, we share fascinating insights from around the globe. You can subscribe to Lost in Space and Time here.

My colleagues and I often joke about time’s illusion. “Oh, did I miss the deadline?” But what if time itself isn’t real? How can 40 years feel like mere moments? If extraterrestrial observers were to gaze at Earth now, would they witness an age of dinosaurs or merely an expanse of molten rock? Clearly, our perception of time is complex.

Yet, there’s a profound truth in this humor. It’s not that time is fictional; rather, our understanding of it is superficial. This sentiment resonates with physicists and philosophers who have contemplated time for centuries. Numerous theories exist, yet a definitive explanation remains elusive.

I posed this question to Stephen Wolfram, an esteemed physicist and computer scientist who has developed influential computational tools. His ambitious initiative, the Wolfram Physics Project, aims to redefine physics through computation instead of the conventional mathematical frameworks. This project has stirred debate within the scientific community. Wolfram’s premise—viewing the universe as one massive computer—could potentially unravel the mysteries of time, its forward motion, and our inability to foresee the future. I spoke with him to delve deeper into this concept.

Leah Crane: What is time?

Stephen Wolfram: Time is fundamentally an act of calculation.

Leah Crane: And that’s a wrap! Have a great day.

Seriously, can you elaborate?

The perception of time is fundamentally the ongoing calculation of the universe’s continuous state.

Is it comparable to stacking images in a flipbook to simulate movement?

In a manner, yes, but it’s more intricate. Each state is computed sequentially from the preceding state over time. A question arises: if clear rules govern these computations, why can’t we predict outcomes? Why do we experience the relentless flow of time? The answer lies in the concept I’ve termed computational irreducibility.

What does irreducibility mean, and how does it inhibit time travel or future predictions?

Knowing a system’s foundational rules doesn’t guarantee its predictability. Traditionally, in mathematical sciences, one can derive future states from these rules. However, for many systems, the complexity of the calculations necessitates running each step, revealing the evolution of the system over time. Irreducible calculations compel you to traverse every step; shortcuts are non-existent.

Can you provide a tangible example of a computation that’s not reducible?

Consider calculating the digits of pi. Although there’s a defined method, you cannot reach the 1200th digit without calculating the preceding 1199 digits.

So it’s akin to navigating a staircase in the dark, where each step reveals the next?

Precisely. Climbing unpredictable stairs in the dark presents challenges. Predictability is integral to our experiences and how we navigate the world.

Thus, irreducible calculations resemble climbing a complex staircase in darkness, requiring focus without skipping steps and precluding time travel and future predictions. Is human nature inherently bounded?

Human observers have limited computational capabilities. For instance, deciphering an encrypted message demands exhaustive trials to find the plaintext. In scenarios involving computationally irreducible processes, we are unable to execute the entirety of calculations; our cognitive resources are finite. Predicting what occurs after a billion steps is simply beyond our mental capacity.

If I had enhanced computational prowess, could I predict the future?

Should a computer execute computations faster than the universe itself, then theoretically, yes. However, our current computers are constructed from the universe’s materials, limiting their predictive capabilities.

Is this framework deterministic, where everything is entirely predetermined? How does humanity and free will fit in?

In deterministic contexts, knowing a system’s rules can imply predictability. However, if a computation is irreducible, the only way to ascertain outcomes is through executing the computation. You cannot outrun the system; experiencing it is essential for understanding.

This presents a duality: it illustrates the limits of science but also highlights the significance of experiencing time. The passage of time indicates that we engage in irreducible calculations, imbuing our experiences with meaning.

Your insights suggest our existence transcends the notion of superdeterminism. Even if free will is debatable, this ambiguity is vital to our experience?

Even within frameworks that suggest determinism, the nuances of decision-making remain significant. We might be subject to rules, yet our choices hold weight. Simple rules can yield complex outcomes. Imagining free will independent of existing laws paves the way for the universe to function arbitrarily. Failure in scientific inquiry would follow from such randomness. Thus, to establish consistent laws, we must acknowledge their inherent limitations.

Conclusively, if foundational laws govern reality, does the concept of free will lose its relevance?

Indeed, once definitive laws govern the universe, the broader concept of free will dissipates. The intriguing inquiry remains: why do we perceive free will? Computational irreducibility might elucidate this; predicting future actions undermines the perception of agency, portraying us as passengers within a predetermined narrative.