Formlessness and Time
Further exploring a previous short inquiry, some-thing or perhaps a non-thing, most people would admit to knowing what 'it' is yet fail to adequately explain 'it.' Here is perhaps more to ponder and less to understand.
What stuff existed before the Big Bang, if in fact the Big Bang describes the prime event that kick-started those changes that we now observe and measure 'in time.' What existed, what matter existed 'before' this particular event...how 'old' is it, does it have an 'origin' or has it always 'been?' What sort of make-up in this matter conditions it to evolve if in fact it does evolve? So far all of these questions involve a perception of time as being in existence. Though if time is not an actual 'thing' in and of itself, it is definately a category ascribed to the observance of the changeability of matter, or changeability of forms. Human beings have been witnessing the repetition of day and night since it has had the ability to perceive repetition. Other living organisms recognize such as well IThis is not to suggest that the universe has a particular function, only that properties go through a series of changes exhibiting energy, and other visible, measurable phenomena that science seeks to categorize and one day control. In other words, how our universe works...putting a face to mystery and miracle.
We categorize time, or perhaps began to categorize time based on the revolution of the sun (viewing the repetition of the 24-hour day [+ or -]). And from this very primordial method, we perhaps began to break down even that interval of change into smaller parts and expand it into larger parts. Reduction has its forecasting capability, yet trying to understand using the method of fragmentation fails to adequately explain the relational function of a conglomerate form with another conglomerate form when that relationship defies predictability...
...Time could be an evolved construct of the human brain to further survival of our species on earth as is evident throughout human history...I say this to make unqualified sociological claims (unprofessionally of course). Time is pertinent to epistemology and ontology and metaphysics and science. Without an understanding of it, humanity fades back into oblivion -- though it does not substantially exist...It also functions after being conceived -- a ticking time bomb which tickles one to violence, and kills one to beneficence...It is a local construct if it is a construct at all -- human beings perceive time as such due to the local change in forms, or perhaps the local perception of the changeability of forms -- though if other life exists outside of this world, then perhaps our perception of time is moot or needs redaction.
Here is a note with regard to imagination and time. Many human beings perceive time as such because they have a perception of non-time within time. Sometimes I wonder where this dualistic sort of thinking comes from (spirit/body, time/non-time, etc) and then I thought to myself... When one thinks, their perception of self, of ontology, is split. Thinking is not equated with the physical life of being, and is perceived transcendent to what is physical, though perhaps not intentionally. It is because of this tension that human individuals grapple with that imaginative ideas are brought to life -- ideas within time to defy time -- whole persons rather than split persons. After reading a special edition of Time magazine on 'Time' I read an article concerning time travel and time machines which really inspired this speculation. We live as split persons struggling to be whole in a busy world with others -- what 'time' do we live in? Perhaps this is the wrong way to phrase the question. What non-time do we live in struggling to get in time? Or vice versa? (depending on the person and their perception).
Now what if there was a time when there was no time, no form, no order? Who formed matter so that it had order? Who sustains ordered matter? Order and time, in this scenario would be inextricably linked...there can be no time without changeability of forms. Just because forms or primordial stuff existed, this does not necessarily suggest that time existed, if time is dependent upon change. If one suggests that evolutionary processes dictate the order of the universe, then time exists only because of the changes involved in those processes. Can anything be apart from time? Off hand my answer would be 'no.' Though if there is "something(s)" which existed before the changeability of forms consistently and unchanging, then perhaps in time and among our perceptions of change we would not be able to analyze it, or even comprehend it since we are limited in our own changeability and think only in time, curious about non-time.
Existentially does past, present and future really exist? The past is only a memory, the future an anticipation. As soon as the future comes, in an instant it becomes the past. If one could find the point at which the three concepts converge, then that person finds eternity and rest. Even if one were to travel 'in time' (though 'travel' is not necessarily the best-fitting term) then the present would still always be the only existing time...only the human concept of time would evolve into a more complex understanding of the changeability of forms. Though human beings would still be limited by those changes, still only think in terms of form changes...
What stuff existed before the Big Bang, if in fact the Big Bang describes the prime event that kick-started those changes that we now observe and measure 'in time.' What existed, what matter existed 'before' this particular event...how 'old' is it, does it have an 'origin' or has it always 'been?' What sort of make-up in this matter conditions it to evolve if in fact it does evolve? So far all of these questions involve a perception of time as being in existence. Though if time is not an actual 'thing' in and of itself, it is definately a category ascribed to the observance of the changeability of matter, or changeability of forms. Human beings have been witnessing the repetition of day and night since it has had the ability to perceive repetition. Other living organisms recognize such as well IThis is not to suggest that the universe has a particular function, only that properties go through a series of changes exhibiting energy, and other visible, measurable phenomena that science seeks to categorize and one day control. In other words, how our universe works...putting a face to mystery and miracle.
We categorize time, or perhaps began to categorize time based on the revolution of the sun (viewing the repetition of the 24-hour day [+ or -]). And from this very primordial method, we perhaps began to break down even that interval of change into smaller parts and expand it into larger parts. Reduction has its forecasting capability, yet trying to understand using the method of fragmentation fails to adequately explain the relational function of a conglomerate form with another conglomerate form when that relationship defies predictability...
...Time could be an evolved construct of the human brain to further survival of our species on earth as is evident throughout human history...I say this to make unqualified sociological claims (unprofessionally of course). Time is pertinent to epistemology and ontology and metaphysics and science. Without an understanding of it, humanity fades back into oblivion -- though it does not substantially exist...It also functions after being conceived -- a ticking time bomb which tickles one to violence, and kills one to beneficence...It is a local construct if it is a construct at all -- human beings perceive time as such due to the local change in forms, or perhaps the local perception of the changeability of forms -- though if other life exists outside of this world, then perhaps our perception of time is moot or needs redaction.
Here is a note with regard to imagination and time. Many human beings perceive time as such because they have a perception of non-time within time. Sometimes I wonder where this dualistic sort of thinking comes from (spirit/body, time/non-time, etc) and then I thought to myself... When one thinks, their perception of self, of ontology, is split. Thinking is not equated with the physical life of being, and is perceived transcendent to what is physical, though perhaps not intentionally. It is because of this tension that human individuals grapple with that imaginative ideas are brought to life -- ideas within time to defy time -- whole persons rather than split persons. After reading a special edition of Time magazine on 'Time' I read an article concerning time travel and time machines which really inspired this speculation. We live as split persons struggling to be whole in a busy world with others -- what 'time' do we live in? Perhaps this is the wrong way to phrase the question. What non-time do we live in struggling to get in time? Or vice versa? (depending on the person and their perception).
Now what if there was a time when there was no time, no form, no order? Who formed matter so that it had order? Who sustains ordered matter? Order and time, in this scenario would be inextricably linked...there can be no time without changeability of forms. Just because forms or primordial stuff existed, this does not necessarily suggest that time existed, if time is dependent upon change. If one suggests that evolutionary processes dictate the order of the universe, then time exists only because of the changes involved in those processes. Can anything be apart from time? Off hand my answer would be 'no.' Though if there is "something(s)" which existed before the changeability of forms consistently and unchanging, then perhaps in time and among our perceptions of change we would not be able to analyze it, or even comprehend it since we are limited in our own changeability and think only in time, curious about non-time.
Existentially does past, present and future really exist? The past is only a memory, the future an anticipation. As soon as the future comes, in an instant it becomes the past. If one could find the point at which the three concepts converge, then that person finds eternity and rest. Even if one were to travel 'in time' (though 'travel' is not necessarily the best-fitting term) then the present would still always be the only existing time...only the human concept of time would evolve into a more complex understanding of the changeability of forms. Though human beings would still be limited by those changes, still only think in terms of form changes...
posted by Timcom at 4:03 AM
1 Comments:
In the derivation of, or lack thereof, a definition of time I have perhaps neglected the theoretical possibility of time travel...a topic that can be observed a number of ways: quantum physics tends to refer to time travel in terms of billiard balls and wormholes. When a ball goes through a wormhole only to be transported then theoretically, that ball has the ability to bump into or effect itself before going into the wormhole...what this inherently changes is our definition of causality, and perhaps our definition of time as relates to a dimensional actuality of time. Though if time is defined existentially, then time is inherently a perception in the present of what is past and future. Time then merely evolves.
Can what is past be changed? This question is the wrong question to ask for those curious about time travel...the past does not change since the time traveling event takes place in the present...thus the present and anticipation of the future is brought into the past linearly....
Post a Comment
<< Home