Go to the biography

My starting point is the question, did it make sense for the Planck team to announce the present age of the universe? This talk will propose that it did, because spacetime is an evolving block universe, with the present the future boundary of a spacetime which steadily extends in to the future as time progresses. The present separates the past (which already exists) from the future (which does not yet exist, and is indeterminate because of foundational quantum uncertainty). There are some technical aspects to this – namely (1) simultaneity has no physical import, it is a purely psychological construct, (2) one can define unique surfaces of constant time in a non-local geometric way (and show how this relates to the standard ADM formalism), (3) this proposal solves the chronology protection problem (it prevents existence of closed timelike lines). In this context, (4) the arrow of time is distinguished from the direction of time, which is non-locally defined in the evolving block universe context.

Go to the biography

Although the laws of physics are (with a minor exception) time symmetric, the world exhibits a dramatic distinction between past and future. The clearest example of this directional “arrow of time” is to be found in the second law of thermodynamics, according to which the entropy of the universe continually rises. In our cosmic neighbourhood, this law is strikingly demonstrated by the sun, which irreversibly burns up its nuclear fuel and dissipates its energy across the universe in the form of heat and light. Eventually the sun, along with all other astronomical objects, will die. The nature and origin of the arrow of time has troubled the world’s greatest scientists for 200 years. It can ultimately be traced back to the initial conditions of the universe in a big bang, which may have been the origin of time itself, and it depends critically on certain properties of gravitation. A full understanding, however, remains elusive.

Go to the biography

A higher organism develops from a single fertilized egg. This requires both pattern formations in space and in time. For instance, in the developing embryo first a head- to-tail axis has to be generated. The later developing heart has to beat and nerve pulses have to spread. In biology, all processes are achieved by the interaction of molecules. Very remarkable, the same types of interaction can lead to both patterns in space and patterns in time. Crucial are reactions in which the local concentration of a molecule has a strong positive feedback on its own production rate. This reaction has to be balanced by a second reaction that antagonizes this self- enhancement. Spatial patterns will emerge in originally uniform tissue if the antagonist spreads more rapidly and has a shorter time constant than the self- enhancing component. In contrast, if the antagonist has a longer time constant, patterns in time will result. Examples for the latter are sustained oscillations, spike- like activations and travelling waves. The nature of these interactions was proposed long before it became possible to isolate the corresponding molecules. The theoretically predicted interactions found meanwhile full support by observations on the molecular-genetic level. These mechanisms are universal. Pattern formation in the non-animated world, for instance in the formation of sand dunes, lightings or in the ups and downs of the stock marked depend of the same type of interaction. Our intuition for processes with strong non-linear positive and negative feedback loops is insufficient. Therefore, mathematical formulations of the hypotheses are necessary to check whether the theory is free of hidden contradictions and whether it can account for the observed phenomena. Computer simulations will illustrate the patterning processes.

Go to the biography

It was in the upper paleolithic, or late stone age (50,000 – 10,000 B.C.), that an articulate confrontation with time first became a reality. The general cultural context was that of art and language: they both show how humans could begin to relate to their own brain functions as reified items, through which perception acquired an existence of its own. But the most specific evidence of this wholly new mental process, and the one that is most directly linked to our topic, is found in documents from the same general period that offer explicit notations of time sequences on bone and stone.
Building on this documentary evidence, and on that of the more complex calendrical and astronomical texts of early Mesopotamia, I will argue for a fundamental transformation in human mental templates that occurred in those early periods, templates that have remained with us ever since, with profound epistemic implications: the institutionalization of a scalar dimension in perception; the growth of a far-reaching sense of control, based on the predictability of recurrent patterns; the “transcendentality” effect whereby the “invented” time frame came to be seen as ontological time; the definition of a homeostatic system based on a totally self-referential evolutionary scheme. The coherence of time came to be seen as the coherence of the mental frame, the coherence of being as the coherence of thought.
Against this background there emerged a contrasting proposal, one aiming for transcendence as opposed to transcendentality. It was the fragile biblical proposal, fragile in its inception because it was not nurtured by the same rich intellectual tradition of Mesopotamia, and fragile in its contextualization, because it remained obstinately consistent in adhering to an ontology that was intrinsically not derivative.
The “view from Eden” proposes therefore an altogether different conceptualization of time in terms of its beginning and its becoming. In this perspective, the coherence of time came to be seen as posited from outside the sequence, the coherence of being as independent from the overlaid categorization system.
A radical new dimension was ushered in by Christianity. The “Christian” notion of time is a true cultural novelty, that will come as a surprise, one that can best be appreciated against the background of the previous two “inventions”.

Go to the biography

Free riders can exploit and therefore subvert joint enterprises. Empirical and theoretical research on mutual aid games indicates that the threat of punishment can curb free-riding. Since punishment is often costly, however, this raises an issue of second-order free-riding: indeed, the sanctioning system itself is a public good which can be exploited. Most investigations, so far, considered peer punishment: players could punish those who exploited them, at a cost to themselves. Only a minority considered so-called pool punishment. In this scenario, players contribute to a punishment pool before engaging in the mutual aid game, and without knowing who the free-riders are. This is a first step towards an institution forcing the members of the community to cooperate. Theoretical and experimental investigations show that peer punishment is more efficient, but pool punishment more stable. Social learning leads to pool punishment if sanctions are also imposed on second-order free-riders, but to peer punishment if they are not. Both types of coercion emerge only if the interaction is voluntary, rather than compulsory. This sheds light on Rousseau’s opening sentence of his Social Contract: ‘Man is born free, and everywhere men are in chains’.

Go to the biography

What is the meaning of the notion of progress? For a contemporary European, the word seems to suggest linearity, like in the messianic Jewish view. Some examples of “progress” support this view: the increase in the quantity of information, the increase in power through technology, the increase in efficiency.
This understanding of progress lost a good part of its superficial attractiveness with the events of the twentieth century, which made it rather difficult to believe in any necessary movement of history from worse to better. The future depends on the past, but not in an easily described way.
My reflection on progress will begin by examining the fact that human freedom and work give form to the future. Together with this aspect, we will note that insofar as man is ontologically dependent, living in a world which is always already given, there are intrinsic limits to his action and to the shape he can give to the world. Even more importantly, the fact of ontological dependence suggests that there is a value in the present of greater significance than that of simply planning the future.
I will propose that a helpful word is “maturity”. It is a concept that regards the human person, and not a hypothetical and impersonal movement of history, which can aid us is expanding what is meant by the notion of progress.
Maturity has to do with time passing. A seed develops into a tree, maturing into what it “really” is over time. Human growth involves not only the quantitative addition of material and information, but also a continual exceeding one’s own limits and current capacity. Indeed, following Daniélou’s reading of Gregory of Nyssa, we could say that perfection, for the created human person, is precisely this ever-expanding movement.
At this point we can suggest that the concept of progress we began with is characterized by an anxiousness, a being-projected-toward another place and another time. Maturity has also to do with movement, but in a different way. It has more to do with depth, the experience of increasingly entering into a presence which is already accessible here and now, although not yet entirely manifest.
The Eucharist, “memorial” of a past event; the (physically and temporally localized) presence of the Lord; and anticipation of the future, “pledge of the glory to come” (CCC 1402-1405), is a prime example of what this means experientially. In contemplation of the Eucharist, time may be experienced as the presence of the eternal. Human work, too, is illuminated in the Eucharist, and receives its truest form as collaboration with the Creator.