Does Time Really Exist?

Rational discussions on metaphysical and abstract topics.
User avatar
ben Shachar
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:34 am

Does Time Really Exist?

Post by ben Shachar »

I know there will be conflicting opinions on this matter but never the less I am compelled to ask it.

It is becomjng more so my belief that time as we have become conditioned to relate to is a lie perpetrated by those who wish to stifle the advancement and awareness of man. For a man who is truly aware cannot be controlled.

We are conditioned to regard time as chronologically linear and therefore cardinal in motion. Much like the cardinal nature of a astrological sign. Ever moving in one direction. We see the arrow of time as past, present, and future. Yet everything we observe would tell us otherwise.
From our actual perspective time is concentric cycles that have remained unbroken for all recorded time. These cycles are so regular that we can begin to understand their direct syncopation with ourselves/lives.
Ultimately the question arises, if there is a two dimensional universe with a third dimension embedded, is the experience of life also embedded and therefore in all actuality already over?
If we were to take the example of a painting of lets say Vermeer. In one two dimensional image so much is conveyed to the observer. An idea and the minutia is understood without the need for time.
Take this and apply it to your life. Imagine your whole life smeared on to a sheet of glass so that every last bit of it was understood in one picture. This is of course an abstract idea but we can agree that the act of experience takes time while the act of understanding takes none.
I could be way off base but for some reason or another I feel I am not. To accept linear time is to agree to work within the boundaries it assumes.
With such things as Asgardia in our near future, it becomes a valid question "Is man god to man?"
For all that would be necessary to reach our past history would be a deluge and a return of the proposed Asgardia to Earth. This would curiously place us at the begining of recorded time and at a chicken or the egg paradox.
This reminds me of an episode of the twilight zone and therefore I am much more inclined to think it is closer to the truth than fiction.
User avatar
Posts: 2378
Joined: Fri May 31, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: Does Time Really Exist?

Post by Heith »

Well, I arrive to this question from not so sophisticated point of view. I will answer from my shamanic point of view.

No, time is not linear. But I can't tell you why I think this. I simply do. It seems to me that everything is happening at all times, so everything is accessible after it has already happened.

I don't claim that I have this power. But I believe it is possible, for example, to "travel in time" in shamanic states of mind (aka, trance) and to attend to a happening in another time. In this way one can for example help make a traumatic situation more bearable, to be there to help. I do not think that this can be done with a physical body, because that is stuck on the precise time where it lies unconcscious. But with one's astral body certainly, much more is possible.
User avatar
Posts: 1333
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:32 pm
Location: Salo

Re: Does Time Really Exist?

Post by RaktaZoci »

Interesting synchro again, I've just been reading of existentialism, both of the modern era and in the history of western philosophy. Time, indeed, is an interesting concept, and as you mentioned, there are probably as many opinions on it as there are observers.

Your proposed model reminds me of an idea of Saint Augustine while describing how God's creation could be possible. Since, in his words, time is a humane dimension, it demands a subject, a human, to be experienced, God, who is not human, lives in a reality outside of time, so thus the paradox is explained. Didn't you mean something similar with the idea of understanding, or seeing, the big picture at once?

Im quite interested in phenomenology, which deals on these grounds. Maybe time, or its humane experience, could be seen as being mental states? There is only present, which can be perceived, and past and future are the same present, only dealt with mental influences, such as memory and expectation.

Another question is how this all should be categorized? Husserl has a good example of a musical harmony in a melody. The separate notes alone do not form the melody, but as played harmoniously together they do. They begin at different point in time (on linear timeline), but reach their maxim (playing) together. I find this example most interesting..

What is this Asgardia you mention..?
die Eule der Minerva beginnt erst mit der einbrechenden Dämmerung ihren Flug.
User avatar
Posts: 3743
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Does Time Really Exist?

Post by Nefastos »

In one of our articles I wrote that -
If we could look down into the world from the paratemporal plane, we would see everything as harmonious, geometric figures; like nested circles which are made of lesser circles, or like in the shapes of roseflowers which, being formed by smaller spirals of time, together form a complete unity.

I do not believe in linear time. I believe that time is just one dimension of substance, indeed the one most material of them all, and it has both (a) spiralling movement (non-linear time) on its periphery and (b) acausal, paratemporal point at the centre. A thought of linear time is just misunderstanding of the manifestation of the first one of these; as is the idea of endlessly fragmenting time. (It is not fragmenting into different parallel worlds, but rather forming an enormous, multidimensional egg of time, made out of thought-web of fundamentally divine, i.e. monadic, associations.)

This idea that the deterministic chain of time is at the same time absolute and not-absolute is one of the fundamental points given in Discordamelior; and it is that point of "transcending time" that makes possible all the so-called "Good" in the world. Everything else is just the dense Saturnine matter, or evil, but whether either one of these actually exist on its own is a matter of perspective: we could very well say that there is no matter, or that there is nothing but matter.

But, to say it briefly, I believe that Matter = Time.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:27 pm

Re: Does Time Really Exist?

Post by Noname »

Nefastos wrote: I believe that Matter = Time.
This is something I concur with, whilst I consider time of more of an illusionary nature caused by movement of heavenly bodies and gravity. (Interestingly, this means its complete existence is a paradox, since if time did not exist in classic physics those objects would be incapable of moving, which leads to my conclusion that due to what scientifically is referred as the 'big bang' of our universe, the motion of matter caused them to bend forces that created 'time'.) To me matter is nothing but densities of energy that are a waste product of the godhead, or interestingly material plane is possibly the only location where consciousnesses such as ours can be born to life, hence the meaning of life on our 3rd dimension would be to be 'the soil of the garden', but that is a discussion related to another subject.
Explore until epiphany, and beyond.
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:12 pm

Re: Does Time Really Exist?

Post by Yinlong »

The topic is something I’ve recently encountered many times and forced to think through. It is related to my personal ponderings on the nature of reality. I’ve lately tried to define better what is my view on material world and non-material world. I’m sorry there might be few misleading choices of words since I’m not entirely acquainted with philosophical or theological words in English but I try my best to describe my thinking.

It’s few years since I’ve dismissed the possibility of totally materialistic world. Meaning only the things we observe for example in current classical physics exists or that consciousness is caused by brain. This obviously has lead my to ask myself what is that world I believe in then “made of”. Shortly: Dualistic world-view in the sense that there are two planes of worlds like the world of ideas and then materialistic world seems repulsive since that wouldn’t explain the interactions. Idealism in the sense that only minds, consciousness, ideas etc. are the only truly existing things and material world is only an illusion is possible in my opinion but I doubt it. Though, I think that considering material world conceptually as an illusion is good for thought and I understand why this is prevalent in many religions etc. From what I have studied this far, I seem to find currently most ground from some kind of panpsychism.

Then to the question of time and space. I have no current definite answer, so I try to describe how I see it now. Actually, if I revisit this writing later it will be interesting to see to what conclusions I encountered later :)

If I would somehow summarise time and space (3 dimensions of space = 4 dimensions of material world) it would look in two-dimensional abstraction like an Y-shaped figure, time being one hand of upper V-shape and space being the other. I see them coming from the same source, being somehow emergent or manifestations of what is material. Hence, I can follow Nefastos’ definition that Matter = Time but I’d also add that Matter = Time and Space. The intersection and what is beyond I believe we can at least currently only approach mystically or in visionary thought. Sometimes I imagine to the intersection the big bang. Other times I play with the idea that maybe blackholes could go through this intersection or maybe every piece of matter or energy or whatever there is contains the same “port” or at least a potential of this port.

Then if playing more with two dimensional models we can think that time and space is like a vinyl record, us or our present is like the needle on its track. I believe we can consciously affect our future so our life is not deterministic, though, I also believe that we can escape this track in our minds like Heith mentions. It is also probably possible for some entities to see the whole discs (or records) with a glance.

Coming back to the Y shaped figure, I somehow feel that this intersection is one of the ports I need to go through with my thoughts or mind. Whether I’ll be able to describe with words what is beyond and if it’s connected to some other things I’m not sure yet.

If somehow forced to answer the question shortly I’d say yes time exists as a consequence or something like a feature of the matter but whether it is something fundamental in its manifestation like we normally perceive it I would say no.
Quaerendo Invenietis - Na dìomhcuimhnich a-chaoidh - Feuer frei!
User avatar
ben Shachar
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:34 am

Re: Does Time Really Exist?

Post by ben Shachar »

The first shall be the last and the last shall be the first.
This has weighed on my mind ever increasingly as I have began to view a continuum of experience as a Möbius strip.
I once had an interpretation of the story of Jacob's ladder as : Jacob awakens in the desert to the sight of a god watching a scene of an infinite line of angels climbing an infinite staircase to the heavens, upon reaching the top they fall to the bottom to coniue the climb. We as human beings understand that a tale of redemption is more enjoyable than a tale of righteousness alone. If we're to amuse himself whilst awaiting Jacob's sleep to end, might he chose an endless tale of infinite redemption? As it is not the status of having been redeemed that is of prime importance but rather the journey while traversing redemptions path.
It is the Möbius strip that allows this perpetual redemption to be experienced as always upward in direction and thusly the ascension through the spheres is experienced always as ascension.
I cannot help but wonder of time, if it's sole purpose is to exist as the confines of which we must escape. As a function once collapsed.
Beginning to build a body of desire for the self to exist outside of the physical, one might chose amongst the noble desires to exist without the restriction of time. This must assume a condition of perpetual contrition. Contrition however, unencumbered by guilt or shame but that rejoices in the knowing that there is still lesson yet to be learned.
Our journey meets it's ultimate conclusion in unity and it's ultimate beginning the same.
Through discipline we can make the faintest impressions ..lines that may persist after unification / disunion and allow one to come under the same influences again allowing another dimension to exist parallel to time as permanence.
This could mean that time CAN exist and can be made to NOT exist relevant to the individual?
User avatar
Posts: 985
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Does Time Really Exist?

Post by Insanus »

I believe that the "beginning of time" was the first realization of musical thought. By "musical" I mean rhythmic, related, I mean the synchronization between man's everyday actions with the movement of the sun, the first clock. Nowadays, we forget this easily because we act in relation to the 24 hours of the clock not being mindful of the fact that the 24 hours only represent the relation of earth's movement with the movement of the sun, so we think "time" exists alone, without movement when exactly the opposite is the case. The "time" that just goes is always time we spend waiting for something to happen. When I write this on my (not actually mine, but whatever) computer, the relevant time is the relation of the rhythm of my writing to the "meaningful horizon" of the thing I might do or thing I'm going to do next. Certain amount of letters in relation to something else that I -or something else that I find relevant- might be doing is "time". It's functional. Rhythm inside a rhythm. It's music. The totality of time is the last meaningful "horizon behind a horizon" we can imagine, so it's the thing we think is the most meaningful, it's our Ideal. Ergo, I'm a romantic: I think that the "substance" of Time is sublime feeling, like the source of inspiration in art. A drawn line might be linear, so a moment in time might be linear too. But time as time is presence of an archetype. Time is Satan.
With a taste of a poison paradigm
Posts: 2107
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 7:59 pm

Re: Does Time Really Exist?

Post by obnoxion »

Harold Bloom writes beautifully of William Blake's concept of man's relation to time in his "The Visionary Company - A Reading of English Romantic Poetry" (Cornell University Press, 1971):

"...A man's time in Blake is either imaginatively redeemed - as by the work of the poet-prophet Los - or else it becomes oppressive and restrictive, the clock time symbolized by the Spectre of Urthona, the shadow or dark selfhood of Los, or the ruin that stalks Love's shadow, as Shelley puts it in Prometheus. For Blake the true Past is always that which was as it now appears to us, and the future is that which comes as it comes to meet us now. The healthy or imaginative present, for Blake, true time, is a rushing forward beyond oneself, or being already at and in the things that are to come. Time is thus of necessity a redemptive and prophetic agent. Blake writes:

Time is the mercy of Eternity; without Time's swiftness,
Which is the swiftest of all things, all were eternal torment.

For Blake every moment is either an Eternal Moment - less than the pulsation of an artery, he says in Milton - or it is a dreary infinity"
One day of Brahma has 14 Indras; his life has 54 000 Indras. One day of Vishnu is the lifetime of Brahma. The lifetime of Vishnu is one day of Shiva.
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:13 pm

Re: Does Time Really Exist?

Post by Hoenir »

I think that if we want to clarify these things, we should start by asking two preliminary questions and by drawing some distinctions. I think that following questions might be helpful:

1. Is there just one form of temporality, or are there several of them?
2. What is the difference between existence and "real existence"?

If we clarify the sense of time from the first person perspective, we can immediately see that there are actually several meanings of time. For example, there is that time in which we live our everyday lives together (this is public time, a time of our society), our own psychological time (this is non public form of time, a time that can "fly"), temporal structure of our consciousness (this is purely passive temporality which structures our experience, a time that resembles more like an open space or a field than dull continuum) and several forms of temporality which sciences are committed. For example, the time of human sciences is different than the time of physics: former is meaningful in relation to indeterminate events like human actions, societal changes and cultural development, whereas latter is meaningful in the context of objective nature. My point is that that time means different things in different circumstances. For example, the passing of objective time is not influenced by "things" like meanings, emotions or cultural practices, which influence directly to passing of psychological and public time (personal time can "fly" when we feel good and "right time to sleep" can be determined by a work), and I dont understand what time would mean if we detach it from these concrete circumstances. I think that all of these forms of temporality are essentially different, and I am also quite sure that even more distinctions could be made. But it would be unnecessary to continue because this reflection has already revealed one crucial thing: if we want to know wheter time "really" exist, we must decide which form of time is the most fundamental, and to prove it by succesfully reducing all other forms of time to the most fundamental level.

Well, what about the existence and The Real Existence? If one talks about "real" existence, it is a matter of great importance to clarify what one means by it and especially by mere existence, i.e. that form of existence which is not so real than more fundamental forms of existence are. If these lesser forms of existence are just illusions or "appearances", one must provide an ontologically sound account of them. In the other words, one should be able to explain how they are possible in the first place. If this work gets ignored, it is simply impossible to answer to the question whether time "really" exists or not. If this dinstinction between "real" existence (world as it is "in itself") and "lesser" existence (appearances) proves to be inadequate – as I think it is – we could straihtforwardly claim the following: "of course time exist, because it belongs to the way how we experience world and our experiences exist! It would be madness to deny it, because this would mean the ontological elimination of the very starting point of all philosophical questioning!" But this solution is impossible if one does not abandon the idea of "real" existence and hierarchical ontological models.

My own account is pluralistic. I think that there are no many forms of time and they all exist, and there is no meaningful way to create hierarchical ontology of time. I think that this kind of an ontology is impossible, because we human beings inhabit simultaneously several ontological domains (for example, domains of nature, culture, mental processes and ideal structures like logical validities) and these domains are "temporalized" in different ways (except logical validities ;) ). And because we are simultaneously committed to several conceptions of time, we dont simply have acces to such a perspective that would allow us to look time "from outside" and thus to create hierarchical ontological model of time.
"Futile as a ghost I stand guard over hidden gold, O lord of the meeting rivers"
Post Reply