 |
| Illustration by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT |
4. Relationality across Cosmology and Eschatology
Phase III - Responsibility and World-Making
5. Relationality across Ecological Civilization
6. Relationality across Artificial Intelligence
7. Relationality across Political Economy
Phase IV - Process Philosophical Integration
8. An Integrative Essay.
Dec 26, 2025. Professor of physics Ivette Fuentes is doing groundbreaking work at the interface of quantum mechanics and gravity. At the heart of Fuentes’ work are Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs)—ultra-cold states of matter in which millions of atoms behave as a single quantum system. These systems are exquisitely sensitive to gravitational effects, making them ideal candidates for probing whether gravity plays an active role in quantum collapse, as Roger Penrose has long suggested.In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Fuentes reflects on her original, cross-disciplinary approach to physics by drawing on her background as a dancer: first, one must fully master the classical forms - the established fields of physics - but true novelty only emerges when one dares to break the rules.
Einstein’s relativity was the first decisive rupture. Time was no longer absolute but entwined with space and motion, its measured rate was dependent on velocity and gravitational potential. Still, even in relativity, spacetime often functions as a fixed geometric stage - curved, yes, but given. Quantum theory introduced a deeper tension. Its formalism presupposes time as an external parameter governing evolution, while its ontology undermines the very idea of well-defined trajectories evolving in that parameter. The result is a conceptual mismatch: gravity dynamizes time, while quantum mechanics quietly assumes it.
This tension becomes acute in any attempt to understand quantum gravity. One cannot simply quantize spacetime without first asking what time is when it is no longer external to the system. If time itself is subject to quantum uncertainty, relational dependence, or operational limitation, then the notion of a universal background parameter collapses. What remains is not timelessness, but something subtler: time as an emergent, relational phenomenon.
In response, a growing body of research has shifted focus away from time as a metaphysical primitive and toward time as an operational quantity. Time is no longer defined abstractly, but by what physical clocks - real, finite, interacting systems - actually measure. These clocks are themselves subject to motion, gravity, noise, and quantum uncertainty. Time, in this view, is not what flows, but what is produced by relations among systems: Time is not an (absolute, unaffected) external flow to a system but a relational dependent within that affecting system.
This move is not merely instrumental. It reflects a deeper ontological shift: from substance to process, from static being (stasis) to becoming, from absolute parameters to relational structure. If time must be read off from interactions rather than imposed in advance, then the universe is no longer something that happens in time. Time happens with-and-alongside the universe.
2. Relational Time at the Quantum-Relativity Interface
It is precisely at this junction that the work of Ivette Fuentes and collaborators becomes especially illuminating. Rather than proposing a full theory of quantum gravity, this research investigates something more modest but foundational: how quantum information behaves when relativistic effects cannot be ignored, and what this implies for the operational meaning of time.
In relativistic quantum information, quantum states are not treated as observer-independent objects. Instead, their correlations - entanglement, coherence, mutual experience and information - depend on motion, acceleration, and gravitational context. Two observers in relative motion may disagree about the degree or even the structure of entanglement present in a system, not because of epistemic error, but because the physical relations defining that entanglement are frame-dependent. This immediately destabilizes any notion of a single, global quantum state evolving in a universal time parameter.
Fuentes’ work brings clocks to the center of this discussion. Quantum clocks are not idealized abstractions; they are physical systems whose internal degrees of freedom are used to mark temporal intervals. When such clocks are placed in relativistic settings - different gravitational potentials, relative accelerations, or curved spacetime backgrounds - their rates diverge. Importantly, these divergences are not mere corrections to an underlying true time; they are the time that is physically available. Hence, time is relational to the experience.
From this perspective, time becomes relational and contextual. There is no privileged temporal flow against which clocks err or succeed. There are only clocks interacting with other systems, producing locally valid temporal orderings / measurements. What we call “time” is the network of these orderings, stabilized through relational correlation and comparison.
This insight gains further depth when quantum information techniques are used to probe spacetime itself. In quantum metrology (the science of measurement) proposals, entangled systems and precision clocks are employed to measure gravitational parameters - not by assuming spacetime as a fixed arena, but by detecting how gravitational structure imprints itself on quantum correlations. Quantum geometry, in effect, is inferred from how relational patterns deform under gravity.
Crucially, this does not yet constitute quantum gravity in the strong sense. The gravitational field is still classical, spacetime is not quantized, and no claim is made that geometry fundamentally reduces to information. What is shown, however, is that the sharp distinction between “spacetime” and “quantum system” erodes when one adopts an operational stance. Spacetime ceases to be a neutral container and becomes an active participant in relational dynamics.
Here the philosophical resonance becomes unavoidable. When time is defined operationally by interacting clocks, and when quantum states are understood as relational rather than absolute, the resulting picture aligns naturally with a process ontology. Reality is not composed of things that endure through time, but of events and relations that generate temporal order as they unfold. Geometry and temporality are secondary structures - stable patterns that emerge from deeper processes of interaction.
In this sense, the quantum-relativity interface does not merely pose technical challenges. It quietly invites a rethinking of ontology itself. Time is no longer the precondition of becoming; (ontological) becoming is the precondition of time.
 |
| Illustration by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT (typo: "spaceine" = "spacetime") |
If time is no longer assumed as a universal background parameter, the status of spacetime itself must also be reconsidered. Classical intuition treats spacetime as a pre-existing container within which physical processes occur. Yet a growing range of results - both theoretical and experimental - suggest that spacetime geometry may instead be a secondary, emergent structure, arising from more fundamental relational dynamics.
One of the clearest ways this idea becomes intelligible is through analog gravity systems, especially those realized in condensed-matter physics. These systems do not claim to be spacetime, nor do they propose substitutes for quantum gravity. Rather, they demonstrate something conceptually crucial: geometric behavior can emerge from collective dynamics without being fundamental.
In systems such as Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs), large numbers of particles enter a coherent quantum state whose collective excitations - phonons (quantized vibrational modes, characterized by frequency and wavelength, arising from collective motion in a material) - obey effective equations resembling those of relativistic quantum fields. Under suitable conditions, these excitations experience an emergent metric with *Lorentz-like symmetry. Effective invariant light-cone structures, horizons, and even Hawking-like particle production, can appear - not because spacetime has been quantized, but because the relational organization of the underlying system supports such behavior at a higher descriptive level.
*Lorentz-like symmetry refers to physical laws remaining unchanged (invariant) under transformations between different frames of reference, like rotations, boosts (velocity changes), and translations. These are similar to the fundamental Lorentz symmetry of Einsteinian Special Relativity but potentially including modifications or violations, often explored in theories (like the Standard Model Extension) seeking quantum gravity, where tiny deviations from perfect symmetry could signal new physics at the Planck scale. It's about the universe's rules being consistent for different observers, even if their observation measurements of spacetime differ.
What matters here is not the specific laboratory implementation, but the lesson it encodes: Lorentzian geometry need not be fundamental in order to be real, predictive, and operationally meaningful. Geometry can be an effective regularity that governs excitations once a system reaches sufficient coherence and stability.
This has direct philosophical consequences. If relativistic structure can arise from collective dynamics in non-gravitational systems, then spacetime itself may be understood as a large-scale organizational achievement, rather than an ontological primitive. Geometry, on this view, is not the ground of process but a stabilized pattern within process.
Importantly, these analog systems also clarify a frequent source of confusion: the meaning of “collapse.” In laboratory analogs, classical behavior emerges not through a fundamental reduction of the wavefunction, but through decoherence, redundancy, and environmental coupling. Robust outcomes appear because information becomes distributed across many degrees of freedom, not because quantum dynamics has been altered. The effective classicality of spacetime geometry follows the same logic. Geometry persists because it is redundantly encoded and dynamically stable, not because it is ontologically basic.
Seen this way, spacetime resembles other emergent structures familiar from physics: temperature, pressure, or solidity. Each is real and indispensable within its domain, yet none exists at the level of individual particles. Geometry, likewise, may be real without being ultimate.
From a process perspective, this reframing is decisive. If spacetime geometry is emergent, then relations precede locations, and events precede coordinates. One does not begin with points in spacetime and add dynamics; one begins with interactions, correlations, and constraints, from which spacetime structure crystallizes as an effective description.
This insight aligns naturally with relational approaches in both physics and metaphysics. In quantum information-based approaches, spacetime connectivity is increasingly understood as tracking patterns of entanglement. In process philosophy, reality is composed of occasions of experience whose relations generate continuity and order. In both cases, geometry is a record of relational depth, not its source.
The importance of analog systems, then, is not that they simulate gravity, but that they demonstrate the plausibility of emergence itself. They show that the conceptual leap - from spacetime as fundamental to spacetime as derived - is not speculative fantasy, but an inference already licensed by known physics.
At this point, a coherent picture begins to form. Time arises operationally from relational clocks. Spacetime quantum geometry arises effectively from collective dynamics. Classical causality emerges through decoherence and redundancy. What remains is to understand how these layers stabilize into the familiar world of determinate histories - and how living systems, embedded within that stability, experience time as memory, anticipation, and presence. That task will occupy the next sections.
 |
| An illustration of quantum coherence to emergent phenomena by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT |
4. Collapse, Decoherence, and the Stabilization of Classical Reality
as often proclaimed by prophets and preachers,
within cohering processual frameworks.
Any discussion of emergent spacetime, relational time, or quantum–gravity interfaces inevitably confronts the language of wavefunction “collapse.” The term is pervasive, evocative, and deeply ambiguous. Without careful handling, it risks conflating foundational questions in quantum mechanics with practical mechanisms that account for the appearance of classical reality. This section aims to disentangle those threads.
In the foundations of quantum theory, “collapse” traditionally refers to a putative physical process by which a quantum system transitions from a superposition of possibilities to a single, definite outcome. Such collapse is not described by the unitary dynamics of quantum mechanics and, if taken literally, would require new laws of nature. Objective-collapse theories attempt to supply these laws, often motivated by the measurement problem or by conjectured links between gravity and state reduction.
However, none of the physics discussed in the preceding sections requires such a collapse. In practice, the emergence of classical behavior - from definite measurement outcomes to stable spacetime geometries - is overwhelmingly explained by decoherence and redundancy, not by modifications of quantum dynamics.
Decoherence occurs when a quantum system becomes entangled with its environment in such a way that phase relations between components of its state are effectively lost to local observation. Crucially, decoherence does not eliminate superpositions at the fundamental level; it renders them dynamically inaccessible. The system’s behavior becomes classical for all practical purposes because interference effects are suppressed and informational outcomes are dispersed across many degrees of freedom.
 |
| An illustration of transformal quantum decoherence by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT |
This mechanism is especially powerful in many-body systems and macroscopic contexts. When information about a system is redundantly encoded in its environment - through scattering, amplification, and correlation - classical stability emerges. Observers no longer need to interact with the system directly; they can infer its state indirectly from the environment. What results is a shared, intersubjectively consistent reality.
Spacetime geometry, when treated as emergent, follows this same logic. If geometry is a large-scale regularity arising from collective dynamics, then its apparent classicality does not demand a fundamental collapse. It requires only that geometric information be robust, redundant, and dynamically stable. Once those conditions are met, spacetime behaves as if it were classical, even if its deeper description remains quantum-relational.
Analog gravity systems make this distinction particularly vivid. In such systems, horizons, causal structure, and relativistic behavior emerge without any appeal to wavefunction collapse. Classical behavior arises because the relevant degrees of freedom are strongly decohered and effectively autonomous. The lesson is general: classical spacetime is not imposed by collapse; it is stabilized by interaction.
This distinction is not merely technical - it is philosophical. Collapse theories posit a discontinuity in nature, a sharp ontological break between possibility and actuality. Decoherence-based accounts, by contrast, describe a gradual, processual transition: actuality emerges as a limit of relational complexity and environmental embedding. The latter fits naturally within a process ontology, in which becoming replaces *abrupt transformation and stability replaces finality - which is always open-ended.
*Abrupt is used structurally rather than temporally; rapid transitions may remain fully processual when ground in relational history. Though such transformations may seem mysterious, they remain processual insofar as complex relational histories can converge into decisive moments - of transitioning, phase changes, or threshold crossings - without involving ontological magic, pre-made entities, or causal (divine) fiat. The issue, then, is not speed, but structure.
Yet it is important to acknowledge the limits of decoherence. Decoherence explains why classical outcomes appear and why they are stable, but it does not by itself explain why this outcome rather than that outcome is experienced. That question belongs to the interpretation of quantum mechanics and remains open. What must be resisted, however, is the temptation to import that unresolved foundational issue into domains where it is unnecessary.
For the purposes of this work, the distinction is decisive: the emergence of time, geometry, and classical causality does not require a theory of objective collapse. It requires only relational interaction, environmental embedding, and sufficient complexity to stabilize patterns of correlation.
As example, this clearing of conceptual ground is essential before turning to a (quantum) neuroscience area such as "consciousness". If wavefunction collapse is not required to explain classical reality, then consciousness need not be invoked as a causal agent in physical state reduction. Instead, consciousness can be approached as a participant within a stabilized classical world - one that may reorganize, deepen, or reframe experience without altering the underlying physical dynamics.
With classical causality secured as an emergent achievement rather than a metaphysical primitive, we are now in a position to ask a different kind of question: how living systems integrate time, memory, and anticipation into coherent trajectories, and how conscious experience modulates the felt structure of time itself. That inquiry belongs to the next section.
If classical spacetime and causal order are stabilized through decoherence and redundancy, biological systems represent a further transformation of time’s role. Living organisms do not merely exist in time; they actively integrate, regulate, and anticipate temporal relations. Time, at this level, becomes not just a parameter or ordering principle, but a functional dimension of organization.
Biological time is not reducible to physical clocks, even though it depends upon them. Organisms contain multiple internal rhythms - metabolic cycles, circadian oscillations, neural firing patterns - that coordinate activity across scales. These rhythms are not passive measurements of an external temporal flow. They are active processes that synchronize internal states with environmental regularities. Life, in this sense, produces its own temporal coherence.
This marks an important conceptual shift. In physical systems, time is operationally defined by clocks embedded in relations. In biological systems, time becomes developmental and anticipatory. Past states are retained as memory, present states are evaluated in context, and future states are projected through prediction and planning. The organism does not simply register change; it organizes change into trajectories of survival, growth, and meaning.
From a process perspective, this is not surprising. Living systems are not static entities but ongoing achievements, sustained through continuous interaction with their environments. Their identity persists not by resisting change, but by managing it. Time, therefore, is not something life endures; it is something life uses.
(Environmental/Ecological/Biological/Cosmic) memory plays a central role here. Biological memory is not merely archival; it is selective, adaptive, and reconstructive. It stabilizes identity across time by integrating past interactions into present behavior. Anticipation completes the loop. Organisms act not only in response to what has occurred, but in expectation of what may occur. This forward-looking orientation gives biological time a distinctive asymmetry: the future matters, even though it does not yet exist.
Importantly, none of this requires invoking new physical laws. Biological temporality emerges from complex organization layered atop physical and chemical processes. Yet once it emerges, it introduces new constraints and affordances. The organism becomes a site where multiple temporal scales intersect - molecular reactions, neural dynamics, behavioral rhythms, and environmental cycles - each influencing the others.
This layered temporality illustrates a general principle of process ontology: higher-order temporal structures do not negate lower-order ones; they reorganize them. Biological time does not replace physical time any more than physical time replaces quantum correlation. Each level introduces new modes of integration while remaining grounded in those beneath it.
Seen this way, life represents a crucial bridge between physics and experience. It is at the biological level that time first acquires a felt dimension - urgency, duration, rhythm - even before reflective consciousness appears. The organism inhabits a temporal field structured by need, opportunity, and risk. Time becomes meaningful because it becomes consequential.
This sets the stage for the final transition. If living systems already integrate time through memory and anticipation, then conscious systems may further modulate the structure of temporal experience itself. Attention, emotion, and self-reflection can alter how time is perceived - compressing it, dilating it, or reorganizing its sense of flow. These phenomena do not introduce new physics, but they do introduce new modes of access to temporal structure.
To understand these secondary states of consciousness, we must therefore resist both reduction and mystification. Conscious temporality is neither a fundamental force nor an illusion. It is a higher-order relational achievement - one that emerges from biological integration and reflects, in experiential form, the deeper processual architecture of (quantum/metaphysical) reality.
That task belongs to the final section.
With the emergence of biological time, temporality becomes functional: memory stabilizes the past, anticipation opens toward the future, and the present is organized around survival and meaning. Consciousness does not introduce time at this stage; rather, it modulates how time is experienced. What changes is not the structure of physical reality, but the depth, texture, and accessibility of temporal relations.
Conscious experience is not uniform. Attention, emotion, and context can dramatically alter the felt passage of time. Moments of fear, absorption, reverie, or aesthetic intensity can stretch or compress duration. In such cases, time is not measured but inhabited. These variations point toward what may be called secondary states of consciousness - modes of experience in which temporal integration is reorganized rather than merely maintained.
Crucially, these states do not require new physics. They arise within a world whose classical stability is already secured through decoherence and redundancy. Consciousness does not collapse wavefunctions, generate spacetime, or interrupt causal order. Instead, it operates as a relational amplifier, selectively integrating memory, perception, and anticipation into expanded or contracted experiential frames.
From a process perspective, this is exactly what one would expect. Consciousness is not a substance added to matter, but an activity - a higher-order process emerging from dynamic biological organization. Its temporal flexibility reflects the same principle that governs lower levels: relations come first; structure follows. Just as geometry emerges from collective dynamics and time emerges from relational clocks, experiential time emerges from patterns of attention and integration.
Secondary states often feel revelatory because they disclose aspects of temporal structure normally flattened by routine cognition. The present may feel “thick,” holding layers of past and future in simultaneous awareness. Sequential time may loosen, giving way to a sense of immediacy or continuity. These experiences do not reveal a hidden metaphysical realm; they reveal alternative modes of access to the same relational reality.
This distinction matters. To mistake experiential modulation for ontological intervention is to confuse access with causation. Consciousness does not alter the underlying processual fabric of the universe, but it can alter how that fabric is sampled. In doing so, it makes visible the layered nature of time itself - its dependence on integration, coherence, and relational depth.
Within the framework developed here, secondary states of consciousness can be understood as phenomenological analogs of emergence seen elsewhere in nature. They are to lived time what emergent geometry is to physical interaction: not fundamental, but real; not causal, but meaningful; not detached from process, but expressive of it.
Seen this way, consciousness occupies a precise place in a process ontology. It neither governs reality from above nor dissolves into irrelevance below. It participates - interpreting, integrating, and occasionally reconfiguring the temporal field in which life unfolds. Time, at its deepest level, is not a thing that passes, but a relation that deepens.
This essay has argued for a restrained but far-reaching claim: time and spacetime are not metaphysical primitives, but emergent achievements of relational process. At the quantum-relativity interface, time loses its status as a universal parameter and reappears as something operational - defined by clocks embedded in interaction. Spacetime geometry, likewise, emerges not as a pre-given container but as a stabilized regularity arising from collective dynamics. Classical causality persists not through collapse, but through decoherence, redundancy, and environmental embedding.
Seen together, these developments suggest a coherent processual picture of reality. Relations precede states. Events precede enduring substances. Becoming precedes static being. None of this denies the reality of time, spacetime, or causality; rather, it relocates their reality within a layered ontology where higher-order structures arise from, and remain dependent upon, deeper relational organization.
Within this framework, biological systems mark a decisive threshold. Life does not merely register time; it integrates it. Through memory and anticipation, organisms transform temporal order into meaningful trajectories. Consciousness extends this integration further - not by intervening in physical dynamics, but by modulating access to temporal depth. Secondary states of consciousness reveal that time is not experienced as a uniform flow, but as a variable field shaped by attention, emotion, and integration.
Importantly, this account avoids two common excesses. It neither reduces consciousness to illusion nor elevates it to a causal force that governs physical law. Consciousness is instead understood as a participant within a stabilized classical world, capable of reorganizing experience without altering the underlying processual fabric. It does not create time or collapse possibility; it discerns time’s layered structure from within.
What emerges, then, is a unified narrative that remains faithful to contemporary physics while opening space for metaphysical reflection. Time is not what contains becoming. Time is what becoming produces. And consciousness, rather than standing apart from this process, becomes one of its most refined expressions - an interior resonance with the universe’s ongoing act of relation.
Summary Box: What This Framework Claims - and Does Not Claim
What this framework claims
Time is operational and relational, not an absolute background parameter.
Spacetime geometry can be understood as an emergent, effective structure arising from collective dynamics.
Classical causality and stability emerge through decoherence and redundancy, not fundamental collapse.
Biological systems are temporal integrators, organizing memory, anticipation, and action across scales.
Conscious experience modulates access to temporal structure, especially in secondary states.
A process ontology—relations, events, becoming—provides a coherent interpretive lens for these findings.
What this framework does not claim
It does not propose a completed theory of quantum gravity.
It does not claim spacetime is “an illusion” or unreal.
It does not assert that consciousness causes wavefunction collapse.
It does not introduce new physical forces or violate known physics.
It does not equate experiential insights with ontological proofs.
It does not reduce metaphysics to physics, or physics to phenomenology.
What it offers
A disciplined bridge between contemporary physics and process metaphysics.
A way to speak meaningfully about time, consciousness, and becoming without category errors.
A framework that honors both scientific rigor and experiential depth.
I. Time, Relativity, and the Problem of Background Time
Einstein, Albert. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. Trans. Robert W. Lawson. New York: Henry Holt, 1920.
(Foundational for the loss of absolute time.)Rovelli, Carlo. The Order of Time. New York: Riverhead Books, 2018.
(Accessible but philosophically serious account of relational time.)Barbour, Julian. The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
(Strong challenge to background time assumptions.)Smolin, Lee. Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013.
(Argues for time as fundamental but relational—useful as a foil.)
II. Quantum Theory, Decoherence, and Classical Emergence
Zurek, Wojciech H. “Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical.” Reviews of Modern Physics 75, no. 3 (2003): 715–775.
(Definitive technical account of decoherence and classical stability.)Joos, Erich, et al. Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer, 2003.
(Standard reference on decoherence theory.)Schlosshauer, Maximilian. Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Berlin: Springer, 2007.
(Clear, rigorous, and philosophically careful.)Landsman, N.P. “Between Classical and Quantum.” In Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2. Elsevier, 2007.
(Bridges physics and philosophy without collapse metaphysics.)
III. Emergent Geometry, Analog Gravity, and Effective Spacetime
Barceló, Carlos, Stefano Liberati, and Matt Visser. “Analogue Gravity.” Living Reviews in Relativity 14 (2011): 3.
(Key reference for emergent spacetime analogs.)Volovik, G.E. The Universe in a Helium Droplet. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
(Classic text on emergent relativistic structure in condensed matter.)Unruh, William G. “Experimental Black-Hole Evaporation?” Physical Review Letters 46, no. 21 (1981): 1351–1353.
(Origin of analog horizon ideas.)
IV. Relational Quantum Information and Operational Time
Fuentes, Ivette, et al. “Entanglement of Dirac Fields in Non-Inertial Frames.” Physical Review Letters 95 (2005): 120404.
(Relativistic quantum information foundations.)Fuentes, Ivette, and Časlav Brukner. “Relativistic Quantum Information.” Nature Physics 8 (2012): 801–804.
(Clear articulation of relational quantum states under relativity.)Giovanetti, Vittorio, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. “Quantum Time.” Physical Review D 92 (2015): 045033.
(Operational approach to time in quantum systems.)Peres, Asher. Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1995.
(Foundational clarity on measurement and operationalism.)
V. Process Philosophy and Relational Ontology
Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. Corrected ed. New York: Free Press, 1978.
(Foundational metaphysical framework.)Whitehead, Alfred North. The Concept of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920.
(Early critique of bifurcated nature and background assumptions.)Cobb, John B., and David Ray Griffin. Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976.
(Bridges metaphysics and theology without coercion.)Stengers, Isabelle. Thinking with Whitehead. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011.
(Modern, non-dogmatic reading of process thought.)
VI. Philosophy of Time, Becoming, and Experience
Bergson, Henri. Time and Free Will. Trans. F.L. Pogson. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1910.
(Classic distinction between lived duration and measured time.)Husserl, Edmund. On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991.
(Foundational phenomenology of temporal experience.)Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge, 1962.
(Embodied temporality—useful for later sections.)
Optional Additions
Rovelli, Carlo. Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Oreshkov, Ognyan, Fabio Costa, and Časlav Brukner. “Quantum Correlations with No Causal Order.” Nature Communications 3 (2012): 1092.
Van Raamsdonk, Mark. “Building Up Spacetime with Quantum Entanglement.” General Relativity and Gravitation 42 (2010): 2323–2329.
