Recent arguments in favor of Presentism leverage Markovianity, the principle of the future’s events being able to be determined/influenced only by current events (and sufficiently near events). These approaches, however, leave the room open for objections centered around recent speculative non-Markovian foundations of our physical theories. Using insights from Builes and Impagnatiello’s argument and drawing on recent quantum foundations, I explore how non-Markovian quantum dynamics may constrain metaphysical accounts of time. I compare rough versions of Eternalism and Presentism in their ability to accommodate temporally extended correlations and motivate further development with explicit treatment of non-Markovian physics in the metaphysics of time.
Recent arguments in favor of Presentism leverage Markovianity, the principle of the future’s events being able to be determined/influenced only by current events (and sufficiently near events). These approaches, however, leave the room open for objections centered around recent speculative non-Markovian foundations of our physical theories. Using insights from Builes and Impagnatiello’s argument and drawing on recent quantum foundations, I explore how non-Markovian quantum dynamics may constrain metaphysical accounts of time. I compare rough versions of Eternalism and Presentism in their ability to accommodate temporally extended correlations and motivate further development with explicit treatment of non-Markovian physics in the metaphysics of time.
Modern quantum mechanics, despite its relativistic extensions, provides intriguing support for a present-centered view of time. This paper argues that quantum phenomena – indeterminacy, wavefunction collapse, the Born rule, and temporal asymmetries in measurement – challenge the static block universe of eternalism and instead elevate the present moment to ontological prominence. Remaining largely interpretation-neutral, we draw on a range of perspectives (from Einstein’s relativity to collapse models, and thinkers like Heisenberg, Rovelli, Maudlin and others) to show that quantum theory operationally distinguishes past, present, and future in a way classical physics did not. We examine how the measurement problem and the randomness of quantum outcomes resist a fully eternalist description, highlight how quantum mechanics introduces an arrow of time at a fundamental level, and consider proposals (e.g. GRW theory, delayed-choice experiments) that make a global present – or something akin to it – conceptually necessary. Classical philosophers and physicists from Einstein to Schrödinger are discussed alongside contemporary voices. While stopping short of endorsing any single ontology outright, we contend that the empirical success of quantum theory re-opens the case for presentism or related “A-theoretic” models of time. In closing, we introduce Existential Realism as a novel metaphysical framework aligning with these insights – one which preserves the special status of the present while accommodating the reality of past and future in a more dynamic ontology. The result is a rigorous yet accessible interdisciplinary inquiry: quantum physics, we conclude, prefers the present, suggesting time’s passage and the now are more than mere illusions.[1] [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/03/18/stubborn-illusion/#:~:text=%3E%20On%20Michele%20Besso%20%281873,245
Modern quantum mechanics, despite its relativistic extensions, provides intriguing support for a present-centered view of time. This paper argues that quantum phenomena – indeterminacy, wavefunction collapse, the Born rule, and temporal asymmetries in measurement – challenge the static block universe of eternalism and instead elevate the present moment to ontological prominence. Remaining largely interpretation-neutral, we draw on a range of perspectives (from Einstein’s relativity to collapse models, and thinkers like Heisenberg, Rovelli, Maudlin and others) to show that quantum theory operationally distinguishes past, present, and future in a way classical physics did not. We examine how the measurement problem and the randomness of quantum outcomes resist a fully eternalist description, highlight how quantum mechanics introduces an arrow of time at a fundamental level, and consider proposals (e.g. GRW theory, delayed-choice experiments) that make a global present – or something akin to it – conceptually necessary. Classical philosophers and physicists from Einstein to Schrödinger are discussed alongside contemporary voices. While stopping short of endorsing any single ontology outright, we contend that the empirical success of quantum theory re-opens the case for presentism or related “A-theoretic” models of time. In closing, we introduce Existential Realism as a novel metaphysical framework aligning with these insights – one which preserves the special status of the present while accommodating the reality of past and future in a more dynamic ontology. The result is a rigorous yet accessible interdisciplinary inquiry: quantum physics, we conclude, prefers the present, suggesting time’s passage and the now are more than mere illusions.
Modern physics has increasingly highlighted the special role of the present moment in the unfolding of reality.Quantum experiments suggest that reality is not a static fourdimensional block but is actively determined in the present moment, 1 as measurements seem to bring about definite outcomes only at the instant they are performed.This resonates with presentist intuitions (the view that only the present exists), yet strict presentism faces serious metaphysical problems.How can only the present be real, if past causes clearly leave effects and future events are anticipated?This paper advocates Existential Realism (ER) as a superior ontological framework that preserves the primacy of the present while accounting for the reality of past causes and future possibilities.Building on our earlier introduction of ER and critique of presentism's limits, we will show that ER provides a richer ontology for quantum phenomena -one that distinguishes between existence and reality, and accommodates genuine becoming and temporal agency in ways that purely present-based theories 1 Wheeler, J.
Understanding whether the features of open quantum dynamics are genuinely quantum remains a central challenge in quantum dynamics. Even though the non-Markovian behavior of quantum dynamics has been widely investigated across different settings, there is still no consensus on which properties of a dynamics reflect genuine quantum features and which arise from classical or non-genuine quantum sources. In this review, we provide detailed information on recent developments in characterizing quantum non-Markovianity based on information backflow and the nature of its origin. We also present a survey on how various approaches separate classical and quantum contributions, as well as how they define operational tasks that reveal genuine quantum non-Markovianity. We analyze several frameworks, including state-distinguishability -based, channel-based (``CP-divisibility''), and process-tensor methods. For each framework, we outline the underlying physical motivation, the criteria proposed to distinguish genuine quantum non-Markovianity from practical or apparent memory effects. We further compare different approaches and their strengths and limitations. The review aims to clarify the conceptual and operational aspects of quantum non-Markovian processes based on their nature and to provide a foundation for future research on quantum non-Markovianity and its role in advancing quantum information science and technology.
Quantum physics has dramatically reshaped our understanding of time and reality, revealing that the present moment occupies a uniquely privileged position within physical processes. In the first paper ("Quantum Physics Prefers the Present: A Temporal Ontology Grounded in Measurement"), we saw how quantum phenomena such as wavefunction collapse and measurement highlight the “now” as the only time when possibilities become actual. However, simply embracing presentism – the doctrine that only the present exists – is not enough. Presentism’s traditional metaphysical stance, which conflates existence with reality by declaring all non-present things unreal, runs into serious conceptual roadblocks when confronted with quantum experiments and the demands of causality and truth over time. This second paper advocates Existential Realism (ER) as a more nuanced and robust ontological framework that builds on those quantum insights while overcoming presentism’s limitations. By rigorously distinguishing existence from reality, ER provides a richer account of quantum phenomena – one that honors the special role of the present without erasing the past or negating the future. We will argue that ER better captures the ontology implied by quantum mechanics, from delayed-choice experiments and collapse theories to decoherence, and that it empowers a view of time where “becoming” and temporal agency are coherent and defensible. In short, Existential Realism preserves the empirical centrality of the present while acknowledging the tangible reality of past causes and future possibilities — making it a more comprehensive fit for quantum reality.
Quantum mechanics has provided philosophers of science with many counterintuitive insights and interpretive puzzles, but little has been written about the role that time plays in the theory. One reason for this is the celebrated argument of Wolfgang Pauli against the inclusion of time as an observable of the theory, which has been seen as a demonstration that time may only enter the theory as a classical parameter. Against this orthodoxy I argue that there are good reasons to expect certain kinds of 'time observables' to find a representation within quantum theory, including clock operators (which provide the means to measure the passage of time) and event time operators, which provide predictions for the time at which a particular event occurs, such as the appearance of a dot on a luminescent screen. I contend that these time operators deserve full status as observables of the theory, and on reflection provide a uniquely compelling reason to expand the set of observables allowed by the standard formalism of quantum mechanics. In addition, I provide a novel association of event time operators with conditional probabilities, and propose a temporally extended form of quantum theory to better accommodate the time of an event as an observable quantity. This leads to a proposal to interpret quantum theory within an event ontology, inspired by Bertrand Russell's Analysis of Matter. On this basis I mount a defense of Russell's relational theory of time against a recent attack.