“Time” as an Illusion: What Are We Living For?
“Time flows equally for all”—this is the fundamental premise we live by in our daily lives. We wake each morning to an alarm clock, follow the grid of our schedules, entrust ourselves to train timetables, and live counting down to paydays and anniversaries. With each tick-tock of the clock’s hands, we feel an irreversible, absolute “time” pushing us forward from the past, through the present, and toward the future.
Yet, Keio University professor and particle physicist Sō Matsuura shakes this human common sense to its core. According to him, the concept of time in physics is not an absolute rule pre-installed in the universe, but merely a “hypothesis” introduced by humans to rationally explain the “change” and “motion” of phenomena.
We delude ourselves into thinking we live aboard some grand river of time. Yet, when we peer at the world through the lens of cutting-edge theoretical physics, what emerges is not “time flowing like a one-way river,” but a complex tangle of interconnected events and the human cognitive system behind them.Starting from the fundamental question, “What does it mean for time to be frozen?”, this discussion strips away our assumption that science pursues “universal truth,” revealing it as an endless endeavor to “create models that explain the world without contradiction.”
This article delves deeply into the cosmic truths emerging from this dialogue, the “true nature of reality” dismantled by quantum mechanics and relativity theory, and in our modern era heading toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), what constitutes the “final essential value = bodily conviction” possessed by humans, who are inferior to AI in computational power.
Is time not flowing? Physics confronts us with the definition of “existence”
Breaking Free from the “Objective Time” Ticked by Clocks
Imagine the common sci-fi movie trope where “time stops.”People around you freeze completely, water droplets hang suspended in mid-air, and only the protagonist can move. Yet, from a strictly physical perspective, time is not frozen at the very moment “visible to the protagonist.” This is because seeing means “light (photons) reaching the retina of the eye and undergoing information processing in the brain.” As long as light is moving, motion exists, and time inevitably intervenes.
The core of Matsuura’s point lies in redefining our everyday sense that “time is measured by clocks.” Pendulum clocks, quartz clocks, cesium atomic clocks. All possess different physical mechanisms (periodic motion), yet somehow we believe they “measure the same time.”But upon closer reflection, this requires the grand assumption that “behind all clocks, there exists a common, independent ‘something’ flowing for each object.” This is the true nature of the concept of “objective, universal time,” known as “absolute time,” which underpinned Newtonian mechanics.
Yet, it remains merely a convenient concept assumed to exist behind the scenes to elegantly formulate the laws of motion for objects. It wasn’t as if a giant digital clock named “time” was hanging in the theater of the universe from the beginning. It can be said to be the most powerful auxiliary line demanded by the human brain seeking order within the chaotic realm of phenomena.
The Intersection of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity—The Collapse of Absolute Time and the Observer’s Intervention
From the late 19th century to the first half of the 20th, this auxiliary line of absolute time was brutally severed by Einstein’s theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics built by Planck, Bohr, and others. As exemplified by the twin paradox, time passes more slowly for someone aboard a rocket traveling at super-high speeds than for someone remaining on Earth.Moreover, time stretches near stars with strong gravity. In other words, there is no such thing as “time ticking uniformly throughout the entire universe”; time possesses a rubber-like property, locally stretching and contracting depending on the observer’s state of motion or the gravitational field.
Entering the realm of quantum mechanics deepens time’s strangeness further. We often hear that “electrons possess wave-particle duality,” but this is also physically inaccurate. As Matsuura states, quantum mechanics was born out of necessity—we were forced to “think that they behave like waves or behave like particles” to resolve contradictions in experimental results.
At the quantum level, the very act of observation interferes with the outcome (the measurement problem). Until someone “sees” it, the state remains undetermined, existing as a probabilistic wave spread across the world. This is incompatible with the classical conception of time as a linear, one-way causal progression from past to future. When we conceive of “time” as the connection between events, it can be said that in the universe before observation, time in the strict sense we know does not flow.In a world where absolute time has collapsed, time itself becomes synonymous with the process of “a conscious subject—the observer—existing, processing information, and increasing entropy.”
The “Here and Now” as a Singularity of Maximum Intensity—An Encounter Between Ancient Philosophy and Cutting-Edge Physics
The past is nothing more than a network of memories etched into the synapses of the brain, and the future exists only as an uncertain wave of probability. What relativity and quantum theory confront us with is the fact that the only reality we can directly touch is the “here and now,” condensed to the tip of a needle.
What is profoundly intriguing is how this structure—described by cutting-edge physics as “time being a hypothesis, with only the present existing”—resonates powerfully with concepts like the Mahayana Buddhist notion of ’emptiness’ (kuu), Zen’s “just sitting” (shikan taza), and the ancient Indian Vedic philosophy’s concept of “maya” (illusion).It seems as though modern science, using massive accelerators and ultra-advanced mathematics, is attempting to prove from an external perspective the state of mind reached by Eastern philosophers thousands of years ago through meditation and introspection: that “time is an illusion.” Regrets about the past and anxieties about the future are bugs arising from our mistaken belief that the “hypothesis of time” is a real, tangible entity. On a cosmic scale, it is an illusion that exists nowhere.
The “correctness” of science is constantly updated
From the geocentric model to the multiverse—how advances in observational precision shatter our assumptions
Just as time is non-existent, we must fundamentally reexamine our entrenched belief that “scientific = absolutely true.” Matsuura states, “Correctness always rests on premises.” Modern science is built on three pillars: testability, reproducibility, and transparency. Yet it merely adopts the model with the fewest contradictions “within the limited observational precision available at this moment.”
Humankind once believed in the geocentric theory that “the entire universe revolves around the Earth.” To modern eyes, this seems like mere superstition. Yet, using only the observational data available through the naked eye and simple instruments of the time, Ptolemy’s geocentric model was a highly precise, first-rate scientific theory that brilliantly and “correctly” explained planetary motion.However, the advent of the telescope as a new observational instrument, and the moment Galileo and Kepler obtained higher-resolution data, caused the calculations to no longer match under the “geocentric” premise, leading to its collapse. The heliocentric theory emerged to explain the broader data without contradiction.
Science is a continuous process of “existing models breaking down due to improved observational precision, leading to paradigm shifts.” After centuries passed under the correct premise of Newtonian mechanics, Mercury’s peculiar perihelion shift was observed, necessitating Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain it. In other words, science never reaches a “final destination of completed truth.”In response to the ultimate question, “Why is this universe so conveniently fine-tuned for human existence?”, modern physics has even invoked the anthropic principle hypothesis: “Countless universes with different physical laws (multiverse) exist, and we just happen to be in one where intelligent life can survive.” This has already stepped into the realm of philosophy, representing the very frontiers of updating “correctness”.
Assuming the existence of the unseen—the homology between dark matter and consciousness
Taking this further, even the very definition of “existence” in science begins to waver.Only things we can directly see and touch do not “exist.” Calculating the current expansion rate of the universe and the rotational speeds of galaxies suggests that the mass of visible matter alone should cause stars to scatter apart. Yet galaxies maintain their shape. This led to the introduction of “dark matter”—unknown mass that cannot be observed optically but exerts gravitational influence.
No one has ever directly captured dark matter itself. Yet scientists confidently acknowledge its existence because “without assuming it exists, current observational facts cannot be explained.” This logic is profoundly important. If the rule “what is indispensable for explanation is deemed to exist” lies at the foundation of science, then time too could be called “a kind of dark matter for explaining motion.”
Let’s extend this to the human inner world. Modern neuroscience can now map the electrical signals and chemical exchanges between neurons with great precision. Yet, why “vivid red” or “pain” – qualia (subjective qualities), or “consciousness” – arise from the brain, a mass of matter, remains a complete mystery (the hard problem).What if, in the future, approaches like quantum brain theory advance to the point where we cannot explain certain quantum phenomena or self-organizing processes without assuming consciousness or a “soul-like information structure” as a kind of field? At that point, science will undoubtedly declare, “Since we cannot explain it without assuming it, consciousness exists as a fundamental building block of the universe.”
The world is constructed by a “collection of hypotheses.”
Thus, we realize that the world beneath our feet, which we believe to be “undeniable reality,” is actually a hologram meticulously woven from vast “layers of hypotheses” required to mathematically describe phenomena—such as “electrons,” “time,” “dark matter,” and “multiverses.”The world we perceive is not the physical entity itself, but merely the “optimal UI (user interface) for explaining the world” constructed by our brains and human wisdom. Truth does exist, but it itself exceeds the resolution of human cognition, and we constantly live in a world of “provisional models.”
The “last domain” left for humans in the AI era
AI is merely an “accelerator” that compresses thinking time
Time is a hypothesis, and the correctness of science is always fluid. Within this fluidity of the universe, the greatest change to emerge in the modern era is the rise of “AI (Artificial Intelligence).” AI reads vast amounts of literature, simulates physical laws, formulates equations, and completes hypothesis building that would take humans years in mere seconds. Now, as even the domains of intelligence and thought are being replaced by machines, what meaning remains for us humans?
Mr. Matsuura states clearly: “Like mathematics and language, AI is merely a tool for compressing the time of thought.” Since ancient times, humans invented “language” to abstract complex phenomena and increase processing speed, and invented “mathematics”—the ultimate compression algorithm—to extract patterns behind natural phenomena.AI (such as large language models) is an extension of this—a “super-fast processor for probabilistic combinations of words.” In the sense that it consumes computational resources to perform massive calculations, AI is also an “entity consuming physical time to process information,” not a magic box. The answers AI presents are merely “the most plausible hypothesis model based on its current training data.”
The Insurmountable Wall Between “Logical Understanding” and “Physical Conviction”
No matter how brilliantly AI can instantly present hypotheses or sound arguments, there exists an absolute domain that humans can never be replaced in. That is “conviction.”
“I understand, but I’m not convinced.” This paradox, often experienced by students in lectures, strikes at the core of life itself. Logically processing information at the surface level of the brain—A=B, B=C, therefore A=C—and achieving “understanding” is something AI can do.However, “conviction” is the physical pleasure of that information connecting with one’s own past experiences, emotions, memories, visceral sensations, and breathing—the moment a puzzle piece clicks into place at a deep neural level. As the phrases “it clicks” or “it sinks in” suggest, conviction always requires a living, breathing body and time (process).
Savoring incomprehension and the process of agonizing over it is the very essence of “life’s existence.”
Taking time to agonize, to pause, to writhe in the question, “Why can’t I explain this?” Holding onto that “intense sense of unease” even after receiving a logical answer. In our modern society, which prioritizes efficiency and speed above all, this “state of not knowing” is shunned. The justice lies in using search engines or AI to get answers instantly and digest tasks.
Yet, the correct answers or knowledge itself hold no value anymore. To reach that intense “aha moment” of understanding, akin to touching the essence of the universe, one must experience through their own flesh and blood the “time when thought hits a dead end” and the “helplessness of facing contradiction” – the very things AI compresses and hides.Only within this gritty, inefficient “immersion in the process” and the “inner turbulence” of embracing contradictions can an autonomous self reside. Even when universal artificial intelligence is perfected and every physical equation in the world is solved, the subjective reality of “how you lived your own life with conviction” remains something no one can take from you.
Embrace the “uncertainty” and advance your own clock hands
The cosmic truth that even the flow of time is not absolute. And the philosophy of physics that asserts no absolute objective truth exists—everything is merely the “current best hypothesis.” When we grasp this grand-scale overview, we are liberated from every pressure of our petty daily lives.The temporal and performance-based pressures society imposes—like “you must achieve this by a certain age” or “you must produce results efficiently”—are nothing more than the “rules of the virtual reality called society” constructed by Homo sapiens to maintain civilization.
The world can change locally in any way through your perception and observation. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to abandon your own agency and live according to external clocks or others’ notions of correctness.
The direction for how to live is clear. First, “question the obvious.” Metacognitively recognize that work rules, social norms, even the passage of time today are merely “models I’ve temporarily set up to operate the world right now,” and have the courage to decisively discard them when necessary.
Second, instead of fearing AI, use it voraciously as an “accelerator for thought.” Entrust AI with organizing vast knowledge and constructing logic. Then, use the newly created free time to focus intensely on tuning your bodily sensations: “Does this truly satisfy my heart?” “Is there any discomfort?”
And finally, deeply love and accept the “unknown self.” When facing problems without immediate answers, it’s the sacred labor pains of your brain and the universe building a new model. There’s no need to rush. Absolute time doesn’t flow in the universe.
The needle in your heart only ticks forward when you fit a piece of “conviction” into place—not by parroting others, but through your own lived experience. Rather than conforming to society’s or AI’s supposed truths, let your compass be solely the profoundly subjective, existential touch of “how deeply it resonates within you.” Create your own universe, colored by your unique hypotheses.
Comment