"Time is one of the last great mysteries", runs the first sentence of a large book about time. Time has been described as a river, but this metaphor is wrong, because time does not flow. Physical reality is a *process* and it can be called the *river of existence*. This river does not need time or anything else beyond itself to be what it is: a process. Time is not part of that process: it is not an ingredient of physical reality. Time is the *artificial bank* in relation to which the river of physical reality flows. Time is an *abstract entity*, like numbers: it is an element of our language by means of which we speak about physical reality.
There are claims that the "passage of time" is necessary for changes to take place. The relationship between time and change seems problematic because of the wrong approach to this issue. It is wrong to start from the position that events take place "in time" and that change "needs time" to take place. Change is *immanent* to physical reality; change is also the basic feature of the human perception and understanding of that reality. Physical reality is a process of ceaseless becoming and vanishing. Change is *ontologically and epistemologically prior* to time: we perceive change, not time. If there were no *directed change*, nobody would speak about time.
There are claims that "we perceive time through motion", but such claims are wrong. We do not perceive time through anything, because there is no time in the physical world to be perceived. We perceive change: on the basis of this experience, we created time as one dimension of the *space of discourse* about reality, on which (dimension) we express ("project") our experience of change. Time is an abstract means by which the mind describes its perception and understanding of physical reality. Time does not exist beyond the human mind and language: it belongs into the *space of abstract entities* (together with numbers, formulas, etc.) created by the human mind.
In sum, I do not see anything mysterious in/about time. Am I wrong or naive?
It seems that I am wrong and naive. It must be that time is a very difficult issue.
Dear Mario
You are definitely right and intelligent.
Time is discussed along three paradigms: (a) the scientific, (b) religious-cultural, and (c) calendar entry.
The scientific paradigm has not reached a point of generalized perfection and acceptance. Likewise, the calendar entry view does not invite serious discussion.
However, it is the religious viewpoint that makes time a mysterious concept. In most of the Asiatic traditions, time is equated with the CREATOR of the universe. Hinduism, for example, says that Brahma is time. In the Semitic religions, time is somehow equated with the destiny. In any such a scenario, it is difficult to comment on time.
As a layman, as I am, I would like to say that time is something like the cosmic-memory. It is a relational dimension for recording the pace of being and happening of each and every phenomenon in an omnidirectional sense. It is not mysterious. Rather, it might be very much conspicuous. For instance, time is an absolutely necessary dimension to rewind/revert the flow of happenings.
Please, let me mention a similarity between time and money. Money, i.e. the currency notes, is not valuable in itself but it is extremely valuable as a medium of exchange after a particular form has been socialised as a medium of exchange. Time, in your scientific discourses, may not be an entity. But for the societal reckoning, it is a reference of existential experience.
With regards
Mohammad, thank you for your interesting answer. I tried to gather all my wisdom and ignorance about time in the paper "On the nature of time" (available on RG). I left this topic for the time being, because I am working on a paper about communication.
Best regards
Welcome, Sir.
Best wishes for your new project.
With best regards
Dear Dr Radovan,
Time.... time.... is there time enough to solve the problem of time?
You write beautifully, by the way.
I think that the quest you are embarked upon is a difficult one.
One basic assumption that many people share is the idea that time is 'out there' somewhere. This may be an error.
My philosophical focus is ontology - both with a big 'O' and a small 'o'. I am interested in the question as to whether there may be a relationship between the small 'o' of living things and the large 'O' of what it means to exist.
Perhaps progress may be made by asking questions, not of time, but of the philosophical problem of existence. Thus: 'What is the minimum requirement for us to claim that an object or phenomenon exists?
On the face of it this may seem to be a non-question. However, consider this: let us take some small objects that we may rightly claim to exist. We arrange the small objects into a square. Does the square exist? Sure, there is a discontinuous set of objects that embody implicitly, in space and time - the shape of a square. But, without a human to organise them - the square disappears.
Someone (forgotten who) once said that "Experience that changes is not the same as the experience of change".
The sort of mental manoeuvre that we must make in order to appreciate what the author was getting at, I suggest, may be similar to the manoeuvre that we must make in order to loosen the bolts of the idea that existence must necessarily occur - IN space and time.
What if this is a very fundamental error. What if the necessary ingredients for something to exist IS space and time.
Consciousness exists!
The Pyramid and Man
By Christopher James Davia
There once was a man in the desert and he was building a pyramid. And when the man had nearly finished God came down from heaven and said: ‘What are you doing?’
And the man replied, ‘I’m building a pyramid’.
And God said, ‘No!’.
The man said, ‘I am, I am! There it is! It’s a beautiful pyramid.
And God said, ‘No!’
The man did not understand.
God said, ‘Come, look through my magic window.’
And so the man looked through God’s magic window and he saw a hundred years go by; a thousand years go by, and gradually his pyramid turn to dust.
And God said to the man ‘You haven’t built a pyramid. You have simply started a process that will one day end in a pile of dust.’
So the man went away and wondered how he might satisfy God. He resolved to start all over again, but this time, he would use only the finest materials; - the best wood and the best stone. And so he sent all over the land for the finest of materials from which to build his pyramid.
And when the man had nearly finished God came down from heaven and said, ‘What are you doing?.’
And the man replied, ‘I am building a pyramid’.
And God said, “No!”.
The man said ‘I am - I am! It is a very beautiful pyramid.there it is!’
And God said ‘No!’.
The man did not understand.
And God said ‘Come, Look through my magic window.’
And when the man looked through God’s magic window he saw a thousand years go by - a million years go by, and gradually his pyramid turned to dust.
And God said to the man ‘You haven’t built a pyramid. You have simply started a process that will one day end in a pile of dust.’
And so again the man went away and wondered how he might satisfy God. He thought and he thought and he thought for many years. And then, one day, he realised something that he had never realised before. He realised that the wood from which he had made his pyramid had its own nature. The wood might warp in the wet weather; it might split in the dry weather. He realised that the nature of wood was the nature of wood and the nature of wood had nothing to do with his pyramid.
And the man also realised that the stone from which he had made his pyramid had its own nature. The stone might splinter in the frost and that it might be eroded by the sandstorm. He realised that the nature of stone was the nature of stone and the nature of stone had nothing to do with his pyramid.
And one by one, the man examined each of the materials from which he had built his pyramid and he realised that each had it’s own nature – a nature that had nothing to do with his pyramid.
And he wondered if it were possible to build a pyramid such that each part of the pyramid owed its’ strength and its’ resilience through time as a direct consequence of its’ relationship to the rest of the pyramid. Such a pyramid would exist and persist because it was a pyramid. Such a pyramid would last until the end of time and thus satisfy God.
But, of course, the man had no idea how to build such a pyramid.
Well, many years went by and one day God was looking over his kingdom. And there, in the desert, He noticed a man all alone in the desert sitting cross-egged in the sand.. And God came down from heaven and said to the man – ‘You look so quite and peaceful sitting there! – Tell me, What are you doing?’.
And the man replied, ‘I’m building a pyramid.’
The Pyramid and Man
By Christopher James Davia
There once was a man in the desert and he was building a pyramid. And when the man had nearly finished God came down from heaven and said: ‘What are you doing?’
And the man replied, ‘I’m building a pyramid’.
And God said, ‘No!’.
The man said, ‘I am, I am! There it is! It’s a beautiful pyramid.
And God said, ‘No!’
The man did not understand.
God said, ‘Come, look through my magic window.’
And so the man looked through God’s magic window and he saw a hundred years go by; a thousand years go by, and gradually his pyramid turn to dust.
And God said to the man ‘You haven’t built a pyramid. You have simply started a process that will one day end in a pile of dust.’
So the man went away and wondered how he might satisfy God. He resolved to start all over again, but this time, he would use only the finest materials; - the best wood and the best stone. And so he sent all over the land for the finest of materials from which to build his pyramid.
And when the man had nearly finished God came down from heaven and said, ‘What are you doing?.’
And the man replied, ‘I am building a pyramid’.
And God said, “No!”.
The man said ‘I am - I am! It is a very beautiful pyramid.there it is!’
And God said ‘No!’.
The man did not understand.
And God said ‘Come, Look through my magic window.’
And when the man looked through God’s magic window he saw a thousand years go by - a million years go by, and gradually his pyramid turned to dust.
And God said to the man ‘You haven’t built a pyramid. You have simply started a process that will one day end in a pile of dust.’
And so again the man went away and wondered how he might satisfy God. He thought and he thought and he thought for many years. And then, one day, he realised something that he had never realised before. He realised that the wood from which he had made his pyramid had its own nature. The wood might warp in the wet weather; it might split in the dry weather. He realised that the nature of wood was the nature of wood and the nature of wood had nothing to do with his pyramid.
And the man also realised that the stone from which he had made his pyramid had its own nature. The stone might splinter in the frost and that it might be eroded by the sandstorm. He realised that the nature of stone was the nature of stone and the nature of stone had nothing to do with his pyramid.
And one by one, the man examined each of the materials from which he had built his pyramid and he realised that each had it’s own nature – a nature that had nothing to do with his pyramid.
And he wondered if it were possible to build a pyramid such that each part of the pyramid owed its’ strength and its’ resilience through time as a direct consequence of its’ relationship to the rest of the pyramid. Such a pyramid would exist and persist because it was a pyramid. Such a pyramid would last until the end of time and thus satisfy God.
But, of course, the man had no idea how to build such a pyramid.
Well, many years went by and one day God was looking over his kingdom. And there, in the desert, He noticed a man all alone in the desert sitting cross-egged in the sand.. And God came down from heaven and said to the man – ‘You look so quite and peaceful sitting there! – Tell me, What are you doing?’.
And the man replied, ‘I’m building a pyramid.’
Chris
Dear Christopher, I tried to gather my wisdom and ignorance about time in the paper "On the nature of time" (on RG) and in the book "On Time and Mind" (on Amazon/Kindle). I cannot spend much time on this issue now. Anyway, let me make a couple of remarks on your story.
You say: Perhaps progress may be made by asking questions, not of time, but of the philosophical problem of existence. Thus: 'What is the minimum requirement for us to claim that an object or phenomenon exists?"
I do not think that there is such minimum requirement. In my paper and book, I argue that there are three different ontological spaces of existence: (1) physical, (2) mental, and (3) abstract. Stones, feelings and numbers all exist, but in different ways. I tried to explain this in my texts, and I cannot repeat the entire story now.
Regarding pyramids, I do not see why something should be eternal to exist, or to deserve to be called by a specific name. You write: And God said to the man ‘You haven’t built a pyramid. You have simply started a process that will one day end in a pile of dust.’
The pyramid is then the name of a process that will one day end in a pile of dust. There is nothing wrong with that; I will end in dust, although I do not consider myself a pyramid. The fact that everything changes does not mean that things do not deserve to be assigned a name at a specific stage of this changing. ... I am currently very busy, so I cannot elaborate this issue (or my view) in more detail now.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Theoretical Physics
- Time