[notime] No such thing as time or motion - The elusive and ever present Now

[Robert Vaessen]

All -

As mentioned in an early post to this list - I’m planning to re-post some of my previous ‘No Time’ conversations. Conversations with correspondents who wrote in regards to the ’No Time’ article I wrote/posted at: <http://www.robsworld.org/notime.html>.  I will be re-posting, dissecting, discussing this correspondence here - on this ‘Akinetochronism’ forum/mailing list.  Here (see below) is one of the early discussions I engaged in with a correspondent. Please feel free to agree, disagree, or discuss these ‘No Time / No Motion’ ideas.

In this particular discussion/conversation I received an email from ‘Alkis Tempos’ - In that email he questioned the existence of ‘past, present and future’.

Note that some ‘redaction’ has been applied to protect Will's identity and occasionally for brevity’s sake. In the case of email addresses or full names, I simply omitted the full email address or name.

- Robert

I question the name Alkis Tempos.  I don’t speak/read/write Greek, but I have to wonder whether this name is a ‘tongue in cheek’ play on a word root for time.  Is ‘Tempos’ Greek for time?  In Latin ‘Tempus’ is time.  

The original post from Alkis Tempos.  

> On Nov 2, 2003, at 21:47, Al Temp wrote:
> 
> Dear Robert,
> 
> I have visited your page "Time does not exist" and found it quite interesting. It's quite a long time since I also have thought that time does not really exist. But I have seen the issue from a much simplier viewpoint. Please read my arguments below and comment on them. I can only put these arguments in a simple way. You may perhaps elaborate them.
> 
> We say that time is divided in 3 major parts: past, present and future. I start from the simpliest one:
> 
> Future does not exist since it has not happened yet. We expect something to happen or to continue to exist, but this is only in the mind.
> 
> Past does not exist because it refers to something that has happened and passed by. Where could that exist right now? There are only traces of the things that have happened: images (in the mind, on the paper, etc.), effects (e.g. a burnt match indicates that there must have been a flame, etc.) and other indications that something has happened. But these are not the past itself.
> 
> Present, as it is commonly defined and thought of, does not exist because it is indeterminable and elusive. Until you say or think "Now", this now has already passed by. Besides, since time -- by definition and as it has been scientifically described -- is continuous, then we cannot break it in “Now's" of any size.
> 
> Regards,
> Alkis Tempos

My initial reply:

> On Nov 8, 2003, at 14:58, Robert L. Vaessen wrote:
> 
> Al -
> 
> I'm glad you enjoyed your visit to my web site. Perhaps you'll stop by again for another helping of Rob's World!
> 
> Regarding time. Here's a couple of thought provoking questions...
> 
> Just how long does the present last? At what rate does time pass?
> 
> - Robert

Sometimes you can provoke a deeper discussion with a simple question(s). The questions I seem to be asking over and over again seem to get things started. In this case, Al called my bluff…

> On Nov 9, 2003, at 04:50, Al Temp wrote:
> 
> Hi, Robert,
> 
> Thank you for your answer. Your 2 questions provoke thought, indeed.
> 
> But you have not said anything about my provoking arguments ...
> 
> I have still another one to add to the same line of thought:
> Since time is continues, how can we break it in past, present and future? And even if we could, we would have to be able to measure these parts, which is impossible. 
> 
> Regards,
> Al 


In this case, Al called my bluff and used my questions to press me on the matter of Now.

> On Nov 9, 2003, at 06:12, Robert L. Vaessen <robert at robsworld.org> wrote:
> 
> Al -
> 
> I don't believe time is continuous. I don't see how it can be broken into any parts. I don't believe that it exists at all. I believe that everything exists in a static (no motion) instantaneous (no time) now. 'All' the possibilities of our reality co-exist in an overlapping multi-dimensional universe.
> 
> Humans (certain types of self-aware sentience) are only capable of processing/experiencing this multi-dimensional universe in a specific manner. We lack the capability to process/experience all possibilities of our existence in a simultaneous/parallel manner.

Here I’m wondering what it means to be ‘human’ what are we that our existence is limited in our ability to perceive reality. Perhaps the only way we can effectively understand reality is by bounding it in terms of the ‘Now’ our mind cannot comprehend the full nature of reality.

> I believe that mankind exists as a spiritual or mental energy outside this static matrix of simultaneous nows. It is only by processing specific nodes of this matrix that we achieve sentience/self-awareness. When we process/experience specific nodes of this matrix, we are limited in the manner in which we process/experience this multi-dimensional universe. We are restricted in our choices. We can only process specific nodes in a given probability path. The rules that govern the manner in which we are restricted create side effects which alter the perception of our experiences.

Our minds simply aren't sophisticated enough to fully process all of reality in it's simultaneous nature.  The physical limitations of the bodies we inhabit are not powerful enough to conduct all the processing necessary. Therefore we’ve constructed this artificial reality of a ‘Now' that seems to be updated over and over - We’ve invented a flowing ’time’ to explain the seemingly changing nature of reality. It’s a way of comprehending the full nature of reality one small piece at a time.

> The rules that limit our experience constrain our ability to process this reality. Those rules limit our experience to a linear and contiguous path (a probability path) within this matrix. Because of the manner in which our consciousness processes this experience, we interpret the restricted processing result as having a sequential order.
> 
> This sequential order can best be described as 'time' or being regulated by 'time'. The 'perceived' sequential order is not a physical part of the matrix, it is a side-effect of the way in which our consciousness processes a given probability path.
> 
> Trying to describe something that doesn't exist (time) is rather difficult. It's even more difficult to describe the circumstances that delude us into believing that reality consists of sequentially ordered events.

Think about that for a second. How do you describe something that doesn’t exist. Isn’t that the same thing we do when we describe faith?  A belief in something we cannot see, measure or fully explain. Where is the science of time?  If we are to believe that it is a tangible and real force then why does science fail us so fully in describing it, constraining it, defining it or describing the ways in which it affects other things?

> The more that we discover about quantum-mechanics, the more mysterious the universe becomes. I believe that the study of quantum-mechanics will eventually convince more and more scientists that time and motion do not exist. Convincing anyone that reality is not what you think it is will be a monumental chore.

Imagine a future in which we understand the true nature of reality. How would one describe this multidimensional universe and simultaneously co-existing possibilities to a ’non-believer’?  Would it seem like ‘magic’ to the ‘un-initiated’? Would we then be able to do things/manipulate our perception of reality in such a way as to make ‘miracles’ such as instantaneous transport, remote viewing and alternate reality exploration seem like some sort of bizarre and otherworldly power beyond that of the mere mortal?

> I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from. I don't believe that time or motion exist. If my article lacks clarity in the matter I apologize.  Perhaps I should go back and polish it some more.
> 
> - Robert

Al’s final reply - I think I may have gone a bit far in describing a world without time.

> On Nov 10, 2003, at 07:02, Al Temp wrote:
> 
> Well, all that is quite interesting, though a little difficult to digest! :)
> 
> The 'static' is a quite exciting idea and there are very few who are talking about it. I, personally, believe that only the spirit is static. It's connection with time and space, and the physical universe in general, is somewhat complicated and, sure, beyond a discussion via email!
> 
> Regards,
> Al

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://robsworld.org/pipermail/akinetochronism_robsworld.org/attachments/20151122/743e045f/attachment-0002.html>