Does time exist?

Discussing the reality of time

The debate concerning the reality of time is, and has been, continuous, to say the least. We take time for granted, but is it really just a figment of our imagination? Is time a phenomena that exists entirely separate, and independent, of all that we know and understand? Does time merely exist because we choose to make it so?

Lets start at the beginning, and contemplate some possibilities regarding this subject.

1. A Classical interpretation

This may still be the most popular - that time is universal throughout the Universe, and cannot be changed, altered, or misused by persons or entities, or in fact, things, or any-things. That time is independent of change, or alteration. An eternal clock that defines all things, and their journey’s from A’s to B’s. A constant tick that exists and presupposes everything conceivable, that is, up until time began?

Yet how do we measure time? This is a clue to the stability of time. We devise instruments, (clocks), to measure the passage of time. Yet, like the first tool devised for just this purpose, the sundial, these instruments rely only on movement to render the notion of time passing. The movement of the Sun and the Earth, the reliability of night and day, returning again and again permits the sundial to portray time. The mechanical hands of a clock, move, as if in sympathy with the passage of time, and only simulate a progression of time, despite the faith we put in our clocks and instruments. Digital clocks and watches are no more accurate, and perform the same functions as mechanical clocks, they just use a different technique, and are no more reliable in defining time. Even atomic clocks rely on radioactive decay, which has nothing, whatsoever, to do with constant time intervals, and more to do with probabilities.

So can we rise above the idea of the mechanical devise to understand time? In our mind, can we reason to understand the basis of time, without the necessity to constantly measure it, and define it by it’s measurement?

2. A Relative interpretation

This is a more contemporary idea of time - that time is relative to motion and velocity. That time is incorporated as a fourth dimension that constitutes "space-time". In other words, there are three dimensions for physical objects; length, breadth, and width. Yet these objects must occupy a placement in space, for example, on planet Earth, which is not static, but a moving body in space, and thus the planet moves through time from A to B. Thus anything you see around you, yourself, occupies not only a three dimensional plane, but a fourth dimension defined by time, or defined as time. Get it? well it’s all about language and explanations, and if I can manage to explain half of what I think, and you may understand half of that, then I am doing well.

The space-time hypothesis holds water just fine, even for it’s relative uncle, Albert Einstein. It fits the equations, it fits the explanations? But if you venture much farther, the grounding still appears unsteady.

Sure, time appears to be relative. The faster I go in an instant, the more slowly the appearance of time will be, (that is, the appearance of the outside, normal world). And counterwise, the slower I go, the faster the observed outside world becomes, and time just flies by! yet how does this affect "my time", in my little bubble of existence? The time passing in my mind, watching the world fly by me, may appear exactly as it always has, my wrist watch marches happily onward, oblivious to any normality, or abnormality in an altered outside existence. In my mind’s eye, nothing has changed, and time is forever constant - or is it?

Space-time implies time is a separate dimension, that could, in fact, exist by itself. Or maybe even interact with other Universes, if they exist. Yet time is affected by matter, and thus by energy, (since energy can be defined by matter and vice-versa, i.e.; matter = energy). The transformation of energy, and destruction and creation of matter may, in fact, be independent of time. The existence of time implies a reliance on change, and motion, (of matter and energy). For example, imagine a perfectly static, un-moving Universe, that travels absolutely nowhere, not even on an atomic, or sub-atomic level. In this scenario, time is of no use whatsoever, and therefore may cease to exist at all.

time relies on things constantly changing, but it does not instigate change. A body or substance at rest, may not change it’s potential merely as a passage of time. The rock and mountain wear away and erode because of the external forces of nature, not because of the passage of time.

If the Universe came into being from a "Big Bang", then time could not preclude this existence, because there was no change, or motion, or matter, or presumably energy. time could only have been an effect of the creation of the Universe, and most certainly could not have been a cause of it’s creation. Therefore time began, when the Universe was created?

3. A delusional interpretation

Have you ever dozed back to sleep for a few minutes, when your alarm sounds, only to find in horror, that you have slept for an hour? Or vice-versa, fell back into sleep, for what you believed must have been hours, only to find that it has only been minutes? Tricks of the mind? or maybe it is the mind’s interpretation of time itself - the real delusion?

If a conscious mind is not aware of time, or is oblivious to the meaning of it - does time exist? I say here a conscious mind, or awareness may be required to contemplate time, or the passage of time. This would include animals, who may certainly not perceive time as we humans, yet they are aware of the periods between events, such as eating, hunting, daylight, etc. So what about plants? can they perceive time in any fashion, or do they merely only witness night and day, and movement?

What about matter itself? Surely there is no awareness or importance of time here? Atoms and molecules in constant change and motion have no reliance or understanding of time, or the need for it. Motion and change persist, irrelevant of time.

The more one contemplates this idea, that time is only of importance to us, sentient beings, the more it leads to the abstract perception of time. That time may not be real at all? If you contemplate the past and future, in simple terms, the past no longer exists, and the future does not exist as yet, so the only tangible reality is the present, is now!

Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg. When we say the past no longer exists, but is only a distant memory, we are not contemplating the physical truth of this fact. On an atomic level, the past has no definition, and has been erased by constant change and motion, to produce a newly born instant. Everything we see and understand is constantly being changed and altered at an atomic level, and reality only really exists in the exact present moment. Memory, or a persistent mental image of a past event is all that we have to remind us of the past, yet this memory persists only because we are conscious of it. The memory only persists because we have notions of what happened before, or can contemplate an alteration of circumstances.

In fact, without this notion of time and memory, perhaps even consciousness would cease to be? Without the comparative notions of what has been perceived, to what is now being perceived at this moment, perhaps the conscious self would simply cease to exist? Perhaps this is why time is of so much importance to us? And nothing could be more important than the persistence of consciousness, the persistence of the mind.

This is quite a leap from merely contemplating the existence of time. Yet on a less frightening note, it may be possible for the conscious mind to transcend time, or the passage of time, simply by understanding it’s reality, and denying it’s importance?

Time – does it exist?

I would like to propose that in fact, time does not exist at all, at least in the understanding of time as separate and autonomous phenomena?
That there is no 4th dimension that may be termed as time? (This does not negate the existence of a 4th dimension, only that it is not defined as time).

Time = the measurement of the rate of change, (of motion).

Without change, without motion, and without impermanence, all of existence and the Universe would be in a perpetual state of non-change. How could you define this state of non-change in terms of time? I don't think you could, and furthermore, that time itself would be irrelevant and cease to exist?

It is difficult to contemplate a state of eternal non-change, a state where absolutely no motion of string or particle or wavicle, nor change in quantum state occurs. All these terms are scientific, and these terms and meanings are deeply associated with change and motion and impermanence. Science and the contemporary understanding makes time an autonomous reality, yet it is commonly understood in these modern times that time is merely relative, with the dependence of truth and validity upon the observer and the observed, on both the subject and the object.

Since we humans associate everything we do and thus every action we take, in terms of the time it takes to happen, (for example leaving to catch a plane or train). We cannot disassociate from the passage of time, or a compulsive need to measure time, (with our clocks and watches, and positioning satellites etc). Even when we contemplate past memories or history itself, we as humans heavily associate time, a time-scale, a time period to all of these things. For this reason, time is predominantly a human condition for understanding and the contemplation of change.

Does an animal or lesser species, insect or plant have a contemplation of time? Is the Universe, the cosmos, creation itself, concerned with time or the passage of time?

For either of the above the notion and the understanding and the reality of time may be irrelevant. There may be no internal clock or contemplation for a plant or the entire universe.

Time is a reality for our minds only, and thus we use it to reconcile rates of change, (of motion – all is motion), and in terms of position within a state of change. Thus it is defined as an autonomous reality when contemplating positioning and geometry, and defined, (erroneously) as an independent 4th dimension.

Sure time has it uses, and without it geometry becomes hopeless, and travelling becomes an ordeal, (especially concerning travelling to other planets). Yet this does not mean that time really exists other than merely for the contemplation of "the rate of change of motion"?

What do you think?

Back to contents..