Now, Factuality and Conditio Humana

  • Hartmann RömerEmail author
Part of the On Thinking book series (ONTHINKING, volume 4)


The relationship between inner and outer time is discussed. Inner time is intrinsically future directed and possesses the quality of a distinguished “now.” Both of these qualities get lost in the operationalized external physical time, which, advancing towards more fundamental physics, tends to become more similar to space and even fade away as a fundamental notion. However, inner time as a constitutive feature of human existence holds its place in the heart of quantum theory and thermodynamics.


Quantum Theory Phenomenal Character Physical Time World Line Point Event 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Mc Taggart JE (1908) The unreality of time. Mind 17:457–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rovelli C (2008) Notes for a breef history of quantum gravity. In: 9th Marcel Grossmann Meeting in Roma, July 2000. arxiv:gr-qc/000661v3, updated 2008Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker K, Becker M, Schwarz J (2007) String theory and M-theory: a modern introduction. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thiemann Th (2007) Introduction to modern canonical quantum general relativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nicolai H, Peeters K, Zamaklar M (2003) Loop quantum gravity: an outside view. Classical Quantum Gravity 22:R193CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiefer C (2000) Conceptual issues in quantum cosmology. In: Kowalski-Glikman, J (ed) Towards quantum gravity. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 158–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brunetti R, Fredenhagen K (2002) Time of occurrence observable in quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. A 66:044101CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brunetti R, Fredenhagen K, Hoge M (2010) Time in quantum physics: from an external parameter to an intrinsic observable. Found. Phys. 40:1368–1378CrossRefADSzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haag R (1992) Local quantum physics. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atmanspacher H, Römer H, Walach H (2002) Weak quantum theory: complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Found. Phys. 32:379–406CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atmanspacher H, Filk T, Römer H (2006) Weak quantum theory: formal framework and selected applications. In: Adenier G, Khrennikov AY, Nieuwenhuizen TM (eds) Quantum theory: reconsiderations and foundations. American Institute of Physics, New York, pp 34–46Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filk T, Römer H (2011) Generalized quantum theory: overview and latest developments. Axiomathes 21(2):211–220. doi: 10.1007/s10516-010-9136-6,
  13. 13.
    Atmanspacher H (2011) Quantum approaches to consciousness. In: Zalta E (ed) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, updated 2011.
  14. 14.
    Atmanspacher H, Römer H (2012) Order effects in sequential measurements of non-commutative psychological observables. J. Math. Psychol. 56:274–280.
  15. 15.
    Atmanspacher H, Filk T, Römer H (2004) Quantum zeno features of bistable perception. Biol. Cybern. 90:33–40CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Atmanspacher H, Bach M, Filk T, Kornmeier J, Römer H (2008) Cognitive time scales in a Necker-Zeno model of bistable perception. Open Cybern. Syst. J. 2:234–251CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Atmanspacher H, Filk T, Römer H (2008) Complementarity in bistable perception. In: Atmanspacher H, Primas H (eds) Recasting reality: Wolfgang Pauli’s philosophical ideas and contemporary science. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Römer H (2011) Verschränkung (2008). In: Knaup M, Müller T, Spät P (eds) Post-physikalismus. Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg i.Br., pp 87–121Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Römer H (2004) Weak quantum theory and the emergence of time. Mind Matter 2:105–125Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    von Lucadou W, Römer H, Walach H (2007) Synchronistic phenomena as entanglement correlations in generalized quantum theory. J. Conscious. Stud. 14:50–74Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mahler G (2004) The partitioned quantum universe. Mind Matter 2:67–91Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Römer H (2006) Complementarity of process and substance. Mind Matter 4:69–89Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Whitehead AN (1929/1978) Process and reality. Free Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rescher N. Process philosophy: a survey of basic issues. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zeh D (2009) The physical basis of the direction of time (the frontiers collection). Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Primas H (2003) Time-entanglement between mind and matter. Mind Matter 1:81–121Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Filk Th., Giulini D (2004) Am Anfang war die Ewigkeit. Auf der Suche nach dem Ursprung der Zeit. C. H. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Römer H (2006) Substanz, Veränderung und Komplementarität. Philos. Jahrb. 113:118–136Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Römer H (2012) Why do we see a classical world? Travaux Mathématiques 20:167–186.
  30. 30.
    Prauss G (1990, 2006) Die Welt und wir. J. B. Metzeler, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tugendhat E (2003) Egozentrizität und Mysik. C. H. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tugendhat E, Cresto-Dina P (2010) Egocentricità e mistica. Bollati BorringheriGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tugendhat E (2004) Egocentricidad y mística: un estúdio antropológico. Editorial Gedisa, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bitbol M (2011) The quantum structure of knowledge. Axiomathes 21(2):357–371. doi: 10.1007/s10516-10-9129-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhysicsUniversity of FreiburgFreiburg im BreisgauGermany

Personalised recommendations