Time
Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labelled as ‘conceptual necessities’, etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors
Albert Einstein
Everything has been thought of before, but the problem is to think of it again
Goethe
If the Yogic/Esoteric Understanding is reasonably accurate, then there are a number of ‘matters arising’. Some concern Physics. If you don’t find Physics appealing, please just give it a try. At the level we’re concerned with it’s all just common sense, really.
§ ‘All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.’ Albert Einstein
Yoga says that the etheric, astral and mental bodies are ‘physical’ but of an increasingly refined nature, and are all perfectly real in their own way: in fact more real than this world which is a sort of 3-d boot camp in which relative ruffians can learn some manners. But what do we mean by ‘Reality’ or ‘more real’? I have no proper idea what ‘more real’ means. But as the rest of the Yogic/Esoteric doctrine is so reasonable I’m willing to explore its potential.
Our dreams are real at the time, are they not? Can we say more about our ‘waking’ reality? Esotericists have been saying for millennia that this world is a sort of dream or illusion (‘maya’ to a Buddhist) created by Higher Mind for our own education, and separated from ‘real Reality(!)’ by a ‘veil’. ‘Some illusion!’ the Wet Fish Test suggests. What is illusory about being painfully knocked off your feet by a swinging weight? However, as established earlier, science tells us that we (and the fish) are composed of 99.9999999999999% absolutely nothing so what is making contact with what? And as for pain, it is established beyond doubt that pain can be controlled or blocked completely by self-hypnosis: ie by an act of choice and will. So nothing hits nothing and it doesn’t hurt.
Yes, at one level, we (meaning the sub-atomic units of our bodies, of course) are ‘nothing’, but on another level we are clearly (feeling, thinking, loving, creative,) fully physical entities, definitely susceptible to fishy flagellation. The difference between the scale of ‘nothing’ and the one of everyday reality is brought about by pattern, design, form… call it what you like. Our bodies are what they are because of an immensely complex system of interwoven designs, from atom to cell to heart; from molecule to mitochondria to neural network.
§ The physical clout of cod on chop is ‘explained’ by the power of the electrical bonds of the respective atomic structures which act as repulsive poles against each other. The energies are so powerful that their repulsive action is perceived as ‘solidity’, and produces the effect of being staggered by an impact.
And, as discussed earlier, ‘we‘ are not our bodies, which are just the mechanisms which respond to outside stimuli via electro-mechanical nerve sensors in our fingers, ears, eyes etc. The real We are the temporary tenants of the astonishing monkey-suit, who are learning to live in it and to control it, physically, emotionally and mentally.
The nervous system provides stimuli which the inner I interprets according to our own remembered experience of ‘reality’. We do not all respond to the same stimuli identically. One person’s ‘refreshing breeze’ is another’s ‘howling gale’. Similarly, beauty clearly lies in the eye of the beholder. We may also choose to override stimuli by acts of will (eg, via self-hypnosis for pain perception).
All is perception. Perception of ‘reality’ may be fooled or mistaken, as we know all too well from our dreams, and occasionally from ‘real life’.
§ I once saw out of the corner of my eye something on the wall. It was a woodlouse. No doubt about it. Then it morphed into a sticker off an item bought in a local shop, of the same size and shape as a woodlouse, and with the same ribbed pattern. It has been stuck on the wall by one of the kids.
‘You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.’ Herb Cohen, American presidential advisor. (Some words of wisdom are worth repeating).
So maybe the whole of our perception is ‘mistaken’, meaning it is real, but only relatively real, as a dream is, and is dependent upon our own memory, learning, and experience. Our perception is our personal ‘reality’ in other words.
Thus nothing is certain and common to all. Thus science is bound to eventually fail in its search for an objective and certain physical Reality.
§ Some aspects of quantum theory would have no problem with this. S-Matrix Theory sees all particles as miniscule fleeting events, not permanent entities.
***
Materialism is effectively paralysing science from further progress by its insistence upon there being no cause for the universe or LMC (Life, Mind and Consciousness). As it also insists that Matter/Energy spontaneously created everything (including itself), out of itself alone and by accident, it can thus admit of no possible locus for the Higher to exist in.
Idealism-DarwinPlus, on the other hand, has options.
Time is usually assumed to be real stuff, particularly since Einstein developed the idea of spacetime, which makes time the fourth dimension.
§ ‘The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.’ Hermann Minkowski, Einstein’s teacher. 1908.
But surely, time does not actually exist? The past is gone, and no longer exists; the future does not yet exist; all that does exist is the present instant, and as soon as we realise this, it has passed. The present moment is all the ‘time’ there is. It is the razorblade of being, on whose edge all events, thoughts, and actions occur.
§ Memories of the past are recalled only in the present moment. Plans for the future are made only in the present moment…
I once saw a tv physicist explain how St Augustine had also come to the conclusion that time did not exist. He then completely ignored this point and spent the rest of the programme expounding upon Materialist ideas involving ‘spacetime’.
Personal-time differs completely from clock-time. Ten minutes with friends passes much faster than ten minutes at the dentist’s.
A Simple Mind Experiment: Imagine three planets, A, B, C, pottering about in empty space. A particle is travelling between A and B. It reaches B and bounces off, and heads towards C, catching it a glancing blow, and continues on its way. That’s it, until it hits something else.
This is a description of how events occur according to Cause and Effect and only Cause and Effect. There is no mention of ‘time’ but the job gets done all the same. The universe rolls on and on and on without the concept of ‘time’. Entities move according to Cause and Effect, and the greater the energy the greater the speed. ‘Time’ is not required. Transpose this little episode to all the events experienced by the Entities (maybe people), force/motion (maybe motivation/will), and encounters (Effects of Causes). Every event in the world will continue to take place, without the need to involve ‘time’ at all.
Materialists will have trouble with this analysis, as at the human level it involves mental conditions like ‘motivation’, ‘choice’, ‘purpose’ and ‘free will’, which all pose serious paradoxes for them. As they insist that ‘accident is all’, for them the universe and everything in it follows a predetermined mechanistic (or bizarre quantum random) process in which choice plays no part, much as the one I have outlined above in that nifty A,B,C experiment. However, Newtonian-style clockwork determinism (or quantum randomness) does not have a crucial part to play in any scenario which involves people (or to a lesser degree, animals, as discussed previously). Human scenarios are ruled by the threads of Cause and Effect brought about by human purpose, will, and choice. Effect will follow Cause, irrespective of ‘time’.
§ The Yogic/Esoteric Understanding says that ‘determinism’ in the human/intelligent world is associated with karmic necessity/’obligation’, thus: an ‘obligation’ is due; an opportunity to pay it off arises; a free choice is made; an action is taken or not taken. The presentation of the duty was ‘determined’, but the final outcome was down to free choice.
Mechanical determinism, as in say an earthquake, appears to be different.**
But the notion of ‘Newtonian clockwork determinism’ is so deeply ingrained in its culture that Science has come to accept time as a reality, and has even promoted it to the ‘fourth dimension’. The fact remains that the present instant is all the ‘time’ there is, and it can thus not be a fourth dimension, as it essentially does not exist at all.
§ Language uses memory to call up old ideas about the meanings attached to the sounds (ie, the words) being uttered. Thus not using language frees one from this tyranny of old ideas. Is this why some monks live in silence? To be in the present moment and only in the present moment? Ie, to be at the only point where Reality may be encountered, perhaps via Intuition? It would certainly seem to be why drinkers and druggies do what they do: to flee from troubling memories of the past (or maybe dire expectations of the future) into the present moment, where they feel more at peace.
So if ‘time’ does not exist what ‘is’ it?
It would seem to be two things: one a Materialist interpretation, which we all find very useful, and the other an Idealist version which relates to Reality at a deeper and more important level.
‘Time’ as we normally understand it in the world of clocks and railways is a result of measurement of celestial events (the Earth going round the sun) boiled down into handy units we call hours or minutes.
§ Just to underline the man-made nature of these units, the ancient Egyptians and Romans had hours which varied in length according to the season.
§ According to Matthew Stanley in Einstein’s War, Einstein regarded ‘time’ as being no more than what makes clocks tick. Is that a sound judgement? My experience of flying over the handlebars of a Lambretta (see below) would challenge it for me.
But when we do this measurement, what we are actually measuring is ‘number of occurrences’. We are counting events, and ‘events’ are not ‘time’; they are the results of Causes. In the case of the movements of the solar system the cause of every event is a mechanical process which operates according to the Laws of Motion: Things, Motion, Events; all operate according to Cause and Effect. The Materialist version of ‘time’ is actually an artefact manufactured by Man for his convenience, as per the ticking of clocks.
The mathematical notion of ‘time’ turned up only when Man began to think scientifically and empirically and began measuring. Measuring the periodicity of heavenly events and hence creating clocks and ever more finely cut divisions of ‘time’, helped Man to build with increasing precision. An engine operates according to a sequence of Causes and Effects. A ‘sequence’ means ‘a required order’ and does not involve ‘time’, other than the notions of ‘before’ and ‘after’ (ie, Cause, then Effect). However, getting the highly precise sequence of Cause-Effect needed to make an engine work is near impossible, without precise measurement of ‘timing’. However, even ‘timing’ is not the same as ‘time’. ‘Timing’ is ultimately just a carefully ordered sequence, in which Effect follows Cause with great precision.
Computer programs which can send missions to Mars, or stop advanced fighter planes from falling out of the sky operate with no concept of ‘time’: just a complex sequence of sequences, spelled out as an algorithm: this, then this; if that, then this; if not that, then this.
§ True, an algorithm might make allowance for ‘time’, as in ‘after five seconds, do x‘ but the ‘five seconds’ actually refers to the sweep (movement) of a clock hand, or a click or a pulse in a system: all physical countable events, not ‘time‘. A truer version of that instruction would be ‘after five clicks, or five degrees of arc or whatever, do x‘.
What we commonly think of as ‘time passing’ is actually our own consciousness of our own enduring awareness.
The concept of ‘time’ occurs only in the presence of an observer.
Or, to phrase it differently, ‘time’ is simply(!) creation (process) intelligently (ie consciously) observed.
Sometimes this awareness is of movement in space, plus the desire to compare one event to another, via measurement of their relative separation in our enduring awareness. We may choose to call this separation ‘time’. Relativity theory comes to mind here.
The Idealist version of ‘time’, however, refers to personal, ‘experienced’ time. After all, we do exist and we do experience things and some things seem to last longer than others. We often think of experiences as ‘taking time’, meaning clock-hours. But our experiences of ‘time’ can vary enormously and are not ruled by clock-time.
§ ‘Everything takes time’: No… not really. What this actually means is that everything we do requires a certain number of sequenced actions of a Cause/Effect nature. These will all be carried out whether or not we hold the concept of ‘time’ at all. Think caveman frazzling badger goujons… How long does it take him? Six minutes? ‘Eh? Minutes? What’s minutes?’ No; it takes ‘Until the process is complete’.
I once went over the handlebars of a Lambretta when the brake mechanism broke, whipped round and jammed in the mudguard. We were doing about 35 mph. I remember every fragment of the next four or five seconds. The shock of ‘flying’; the view of Friesian cows over the fence, one of whom was looking straight at me, chewing; noting that there wasn’t any traffic coming; realising that I didn’t need to analyse the cause of my flying through the air at the moment, only what to do next; seeing the tarmac approaching my face; noting the size of the aggregate in the tarmac; realising that I was likely to end up in front of the driver; smelling the fresh tar; turning my cheek; then turning my shoulder to take the blow; making sure my legs were relaxed; bouncing over; moving my head to avoid the tarmac again; checking body mentally for distress; knowing that there would not be even a scratch on my crash helmet. Just five seconds that felt like ten minutes.
Of course, ‘time’ doesn’t come into this at all. What happened to me was not that time slowed down but that my perception, or awareness, speeded up. I was, if you like, experiencing ever finer shavings of the present instant. People often report ‘never having felt so alive’ when recounting some dramatic event in their lives which required their close attention. Many wartime experiences would fit in here.
‘Nowness’, as we might call it, is the sense of enduring personal awareness, or perhaps ‘accelerated consciousness’, and has nothing to do with clocks. ‘Time’ is indeed relative.
§ Other examples of such relativity:
Watching seconds tick by on a clock. It is possible to glance up suddenly and ‘catch the clock unawares’, so that the second hand ‘takes’ an apparent 2+ seconds before it clicks again. Try it.
Waiting for the result of an x-ray takes hours….
‘A watched kettle never boils.’
Hypnosis: your consciousness has been given the afternoon off. You are doing just the opposite of paying close attention to the moment. Subjects seem to underestimate their ‘time under’ by ~90%.
Meditation: you have deliberately withdrawn your attention and consciousness from the present moment. ‘Time’ passes quicker than expected.
‘Time’ goes quicker when you’re having fun. By definition you are relaxing and not paying close attention. Your awareness/consciousness is partially withdrawn. Also possibly full of beer, which complicates the issue somewhat.
Under anaesthesia, ‘time’ passes ‘instantly’: consciousness is ‘sent away’.
LIVING IN THE NOW means being fully alive; after all, there is no other time in which to live. Paying close attention to our thoughts, emotional surges, actions, and surroundings is what Buddhists call ‘mindfulness’, and from it they derive the axiom: ‘When walking, just walk; when sitting, just sit. Above all, don’t wobble’.
An interesting experiment was once done which showed how concentration can conflict with mindful awareness. Students were instructed to watch a video of people playing basketball and were asked to count how many passes were made. During the video a woman in a gorilla suit walks through the players for five seconds, and beats her chest to camera. Afterwards, the viewers were asked did they see anything unusual, and even ‘Did you see a gorilla?’. Some 46% reported no gorilla or anything unusual.
If you’d like to take a look at the video yourself, go to http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/media/ig.html then select ‘View the ‘basketball’ video’.
***
So where does all this leave (non-existent) ‘time’ as a fourth dimension, and thus the spacetime that Einstein worked with?
On a day to day level, it doesn’t cause a problem. Cosmology and normal physics are concerned with measurement and precise ‘timing’/sequencing, and Newtonian ‘time’ is fine for understanding how physical things relate. But it might be causing problems elsewhere in physics when ‘time’ is taken for the fourth dimension. And it will certainly run into trouble when the Yogic/Esoteric worlds of the astral etc finally become accepted, worlds in which Mind is the moving force, and where, according to mediums and Yogis, ‘time’ is not even conceived of at all.
§ I suspect that this is really no different from ‘time’ in our 3-d world: it doesn’t exist here, either; it’s just that we’ve got used to thinking that it does.
The timelessness of the Higher world might explain the notorious unreliability of honest mediumistic predictions (having excluded all the usual issues with fraud, mania, etc). Thus: if Cause, Choice, and Effect (ie Karmic Law) is what makes things happen, then mapping out an Effect for a given Cause might be a horribly complex job, as there are so many variables involved as a result of many people’s many choices constantly interacting with each other. Perhaps a medium can pick out one likely Effect from the enormous web of possibilities, but as time is of no importance in these things (not least because it doesn’t exist) it will be very hard to predict when the Effect will materialise. (That notion of a web of possibilities seems to be similar to something in the quantum world.**) Hence, Yogis often speak of karmic debts ‘ripening’ or ‘maturing’: ie, a gradual organic process which depends upon multiple external variables.
I’m not the only one who has a hard time with spacetime, apparently. Real physicists do as well:
Many spacetime continua have physical interpretations which most physicists would consider bizarre or unsettling. For example, a compact spacetime has closed, time-like curves, which violate our usual ideas of causality (that is, future events could affect past ones). For this reason, mathematical physicists usually consider only restricted subsets of all the possible spacetimes. One way to do this is to study ‘realistic’ solutions of the equations of general relativity. Another way is to add some additional ‘physically reasonable’ but still fairly general geometric restrictions and try to prove interesting things about the resulting spacetimes. (from Wikipedia, ‘Spacetime’)
So maybe something really is awry with ‘spacetime’ as a concept, if it leads professionals to such tortuous and even questionable attempts to force it to behave. D+ suggests that the problem is that ‘time’ is not a dimension, and it’s the assumption that it is which may be causing (some of?) the problem.
Maybe one day we will consider ‘time’ as being a name we give to our personal experience of Mind existing in space… as a sort of ‘experiential factoid’. This would release us (and ‘spacetime’) from the dilemma of having two entirely different definitions of the fourth dimension. See below…
Dimensions
Man is the measure of all things
Protagoras
Another reason why ‘time’ can’t be the fourth dimension is that the position has already been taken by the hypercube (or tesseract).
When I came across this oddity, I was baffled by how science seemed to accept two entirely different entities as being representative of the fourth dimension. I understand that the ‘time’ of spacetime is handled by a different sort of maths from the maths of the hypercube. But so what? Is ‘time’ the fourth dimension, or the hypercube? It can’t be both.
See what you think…
Interesting stuff? Worth telling your friends about? Please tell them… Strange ideas like these need to be discussed.