The Nature of Time

Hi V,

I know we've had discussion on here before about time and time-travel, so it's good to bring this to the fore once again as they are always interesting.

I don't think we can say that time is an illusion as it is something we know exists, otherwise we wouldn't be able to measure it. However we also have to recognise that time itself can be considered a two-dimension thing in itself, not just a single thing. We have a) the measurement of the passage of time and also b) a point in time. These are two completely distinct things and, whilst they are related, we can also consder there to be an infinite number of points of time within any passage of time and so, by this respect, they do not directly relate in any measurable manner.

This sort of thing can also be observed in mathematics, including the sort of maths we learn at A level, such as integration and differentiation equations. These types of equations are often formulated in terms of "delta time" which is a change in time and, for example, the process of integration, looks at what happens when time "tends towards" zero or towards infinity, i.e. looking at the whole or the single point.

If we then look at quantum theories, we can see that it refers to particles coming into and out of existence and travelling forward in time and backward in time. Often people will scoff at the thought of a particle travelling backward in time, but these are known as Tachyons (a theoretical particle) and are particles that are travelling faster than the speed of light. If you get into it a bit more deeply you can realise that a tachyon travelling travelling faster than light backwards in time is identical to a counterpart regular particle travelling slower than the speed of light forwards in time. Perhaps it is just a case that our means of detecting particles is not sufficient yet for us to be sure that these are just one and the same.

So, as I see it, time is very real, any maybe when it is understood more properly and in a less abstract fashion then it will enable a lot of understanding to come forward, but I'm sure it will not be the answer to everything.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Yes, well, reading the article and pondering - as we have before - time exists ..... but isn't what people think it is or feel it to be. That's the illusion. Things can travel backward in time (tachyons). And according to some theories, time pops in and out of existence at the quantum level. It certainly slows or speeds up according to your physical movements in space.

In the deepest meditation, is the suspesion of time just meaningless and subjective, or is it an actual escape from time, to a degree? Most people who meditate and feel 'out of time' still see that their watch has moved on an hour when they emerge. But it's possible to seemingly experience weeks of events, and discover that only a moment elapsed.....

I suspect that consciousness is the most central thing to what the universe is about, and that consciousness is the doorway 'out of time' to a degree.

V

I don't think we can say that time is an illusion as it is something we know exists, otherwise we wouldn't be able to measure it.

Not true. As I see it, time does not exist - it's an illusion. We can not measure it, not really. Time is measured relative to distance - "Time" is something that elapses when an object moves from point A to point B.

However, this assumes that there is such a thing as a discrete object that can be moved from "point" A to B. I don't know if anyone has been following the "search" to find an object, something that gives mass, that has gone on now for several decades in places such as CERN - but to date, no one has found anything of substance in the universe.

If there is no such thing as an object, then how can "time" pass when you move a non existing thing from one "place" to another?

Space, empty space, (or emptyness or the void) though does exist - Time and Mass does not exist, and neither does anyting else that is based on concepts of time and mass. As the Buddhists/Yogis would say: Consciousness alone exists, everything else is an illusion.

However we also have to recognise that time itself can be considered a two-dimension thing in itself, not just a single thing. We have a) the measurement of the passage of time and also b) a point in time. These are two completely distinct things and, whilst they are related, we can also consder there to be an infinite number of points of time within any passage of time and so, by this respect, they do not directly relate in any measurable manner.

This sort of thing can also be observed in mathematics, including the sort of maths we learn at A level, such as integration and differentiation equations. These types of equations are often formulated in terms of "delta time" which is a change in time and, for example, the process of integration, looks at what happens when time "tends towards" zero or towards infinity, i.e. looking at the whole or the single point.

If we then look at quantum theories, we can see that it refers to particles coming into and out of existence and travelling forward in time and backward in time. Often people will scoff at the thought of a particle travelling backward in time, but these are known as Tachyons (a theoretical particle) and are particles that are travelling faster than the speed of light. If you get into it a bit more deeply you can realise that a tachyon travelling travelling faster than light backwards in time is identical to a counterpart regular particle travelling slower than the speed of light forwards in time. Perhaps it is just a case that our means of detecting particles is not sufficient yet for us to be sure that these are just one and the same.

These points are correct, but as observations of how the illusion behaves: it, the universe, time, objects, particles behave as the observer expects them to.

So, as I see it, time is very real, any maybe when it is understood more properly and in a less abstract fashion then it will enable a lot of understanding to come forward, but I'm sure it will not be the answer to everything.

Your right in the last bit. It doesn't matter how many very clever clever mathematical theories are produced, and highly advanced technolgies developed to demonstrate or "understand" time "more properly" - the fact remains that you can not find a single object that exists independant of the observer.

There's a Zen koan: "If the tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it fall, does it make a noise?"

You could re-write that as: "I dreamn't that I saw a massive explosion, the building was demolished, the emergency services quickly arrived at the scene. If I was not there to hear it, would the explosion had made a sound?"

Yes, well, reading the article and pondering - as we have before - time exists ..... but isn't what people think it is or feel it to be. That's the illusion. Things can travel backward in time (tachyons). And according to some theories, time pops in and out of existence at the quantum level. It certainly slows or speeds up according to your physical movements in space.

Not true. As I see it, time does not exist - it's an illusion. We can not measure it, not really. Time is measured relative to distance - "Time" is something that elapses when an object moves from point A to point B.

I think we're getting into the semantics game again.
We can measure time... I have a watch, it does that for me, therefore time exists. However as V so rightly pointed out in his comment "it certainly slows or speeds up" and as james has also pointed out, we can only measure it relative to something (James, you can't contradict yourself by saying "time does not exist" and then saying "time is something..." :D). However that is specifically referring to a measurement of time passing and not a singular point in time; which is where we really start to struggle in measuring it.

In the deepest meditation, is the suspesion of time just meaningless and subjective, or is it an actual escape from time, to a degree? Most people who meditate and feel 'out of time' still see that their watch has moved on an hour when they emerge. But it's possible to seemingly experience weeks of events, and discover that only a moment elapsed.....

This is where meditation allows us to move away from being in the past and future and recognising a passage of time between two point, but actually brings us to the present moment; a singular point in time, where we cannot recognise or measure time, hence we are not necessary moving 'out of time' but we are moving from the dimension of passing time to the dimension of singular point time. (the power of "now" and all that ;))

I suspect that consciousness is the most central thing to what the universe is about, and that consciousness is the doorway 'out of time' to a degree.

However, this assumes that there is such a thing as a discrete object that can be moved from "point" A to B. I don't know if anyone has been following the "search" to find an object, something that gives mass, that has gone on now for several decades in places such as CERN - but to date, no one has found anything of substance in the universe.

If there is no such thing as an object, then how can "time" pass when you move a non existing thing from one "place" to another?

Space, empty space, (or emptyness or the void) though does exist - Time and Mass does not exist, and neither does anyting else that is based on concepts of time and mass. As the Buddhists/Yogis would say: Consciousness alone exists, everything else is an illusion.

Yes, conciousness; the true Self, is the one thing we can know to exist, and now we get onto the semantics of what we mean by illusion. I can tangibly touch this computer in front of me... it does exist, but it only exists in the way that I percieve it with my consciousness, and your own perception of it would be different and based around your own consciousness; although ultimately we are all one consciousness and we are all perceiving the same thing. So whilst it exists, the perception of it is illusory and likewise, whilst time exists, the perception to each individual is illusory.

So time does exist and it can be measured, but it is illusory in that the measurement of it is bound by our own indivual perception relative to our own framework of the universe. Through understanding the interconnectedness of the consciousness of each of us we could then begin to understand the true measurement of time and then perhaps the single point of time.

There's a Zen koan: "If the tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it fall, does it make a noise?"

In my own perception the tree has not made a sound, but that does not mean that there was no sound. The perception relative to myself is different to the perception of the place where the tree fell.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Amen to all that, Giles. From all the posts above, it's almost enough (I just thought) as to make one think, "So what's the point of all these physicists and mathematicians theorising about and doing experiments on time, anyway?" Since we know time is both real and not real, or it depends upon frame of reference; and no billion-dollar particle collider or no conference is going to tell us what we know while in meditation.

But hard science is maybe, in the end, driven by utility: to discover something that works and can actually be used, as in future technology. So it's like, never mind the ultimate reality, let's just advance our 'science' a bit more, maybe leading to a new technology. And, of course, heading all of that are these people for whom it's simply a career, with a salary based upon it. Nice to get paid for an intellectual hobby of interest!

Still, it is interesting....

V

We can measure time... I have a watch, it does that for me, therefore time exists.

Yes, but only if the watch exists - how do I know that I'm not dreaming of having a watch that has hands that move?

However as V so rightly pointed out in his comment "it certainly slows or speeds up" and as james has also pointed out, we can only measure it relative to something (James, you can't contradict yourself by saying "time does not exist" and then saying "time is something..." :D).

I'm not contradicting myself - I was trying to explain that our understanding or definition of time is faulty - the definition is only correct if objects exist, but they don't, they only appear to exist due to how our mind perceives things. Objects only exist because we think that they do - our thinking fools us. In terms of absolute reality, which the billion dollar colliders that CERN are trying to ascertain, there is no evidence that objects exist.

If objects don't exist, then neither does time.

This is where meditation allows us to move away from being in the past and future and recognising a passage of time between two point, but actually brings us to the present moment; a singular point in time, where we cannot recognise or measure time, hence we are not necessary moving 'out of time' but we are moving from the dimension of passing time to the dimension of singular point time. (the power of "now" and all that ;))

Yes, but the notion of a "dimension of singular point time" is more mind stuff. There's a zen story about three monks, one seeing a flag says "the flag is moving". The second corrects him saying "No, its not the flag, but the wind that's moving. The third monks corrects them both saying "No, its not the flag or the wind, but the mind that's moving"

Yes, conciousness; the true Self, is the one thing we can know to exist

Yes, that's true.

I can tangibly touch this computer in front of me... it does exist

No, it doesn't exist, not in terms of absolute reality - I could be tangibly touching this computer in a dream, but it would just be a dream. If I analyse this computer, i know that it's made from metals and plastic, which are made of atoms that are 99.99% empty space, just like outer space. So 99.99% of this computer and the hand that's typing this is just empty space.

If I then examine the 0.001% of the empty space that I think is not empty (the nucleus), I soon find that 100% of that is empty space. It's just my thinking, the "moving mind" that fools me into thinking that the coomputer and the hand that is typig this exists.

So whilst it exists, the perception of it is illusory and likewise, whilst time exists, the perception to each individual is illusory.

No, "it" does not exist, neither does the perception of "it" exist - both the object and the mechanism of perception (the eyes, the senses, the brain)
are illusions - they dont exist. Only the thing that preceives exists.

In my own perception the tree has not made a sound, but that does not mean that there was no sound. The perception relative to myself is different to the perception of the place where the tree fell.

What about that explosion I heard in that dream, would it have made a sound if I was not there to hear it?

Hello- what an interesting- and difficult- topic, although at 8.30 a.m. I kind of wish that I hadn't started reading it!!Bear with me if I'm going off the subject with this (and I have to confess that I've only scanned through previous posts) but when you say James, that objects don't exist, would it be more accurate to say that they are manifestations of energy? We know that energy exists even if we can't always see it ( we 'capture' its power in 'energy medicines' like acupuncture and homeopathy after all).
Regarding time, can it not be seen as a measurement of the speed of light- which is variable- I think some of this was covered in the tv drama on Saturday evening re Einstein and his relativity theory. Need to go now but just wanted to drop in those (probably unintelligent) comments! Hom

when you say James, that objects don't exist, would it be more accurate to say that they are manifestations of energy? We know that energy exists even if we can't always see it ( we 'capture' its power in 'energy medicines' like acupuncture and homeopathy after all).

Hi Hom,

For me this is a level of perception. When you think of all things as just a manifestation of energy, then that is a higher level then seeing photons, sub-atomic particles. This itself is a higher level of perception then seeing atoms, protons, electrons - which is a a higher level of perception then sticks and stones.

Seeing everything as energy would be the "highest" level that would be possible when you rely on your senses and instruments to tell you the truth about life, reality and so on.

Energy is a vibration, or moving particles. All our senses detect vibrations, as do all our instruments.

Vibration, energy, however is an illusion - anything that moves is an illusion, an illusion caused by the "moving mind". It's not real because the thing that you believe "vibrates" or "moves" does not exist, it has no substance, so it can't possibly vibrate.

How can something that does not exist, has no substance move from one place to another? It can't - its only the mind that fools you into thinking that it exists and moves.

A higher level of perception then "everything is energy" would be to see everything as a holographic projection. A good book on this is "The Holographic Universe", which I consider essential reading for anyone that wants to know anything about the world.

Regarding time, can it not be seen as a measurement of the speed of light- which is variable- I think some of this was covered in the tv drama on Saturday evening re Einstein and his relativity theory.

You can see time in any way that pleases you to see it - as the unit/time it takes the earth to spin once, the unit/time it takes the earth to go around the sun once, or the unit/time it takes light to travel through empty space.

But this has nothing to do with absolute reality - the moment you talk about an object or particle moving, you lose it as it were. This is not how the world really is - there are no objects that move.

Only the mind "moves", time is a perception of the moving mind, all our other senses are other perceptions of the moving miond - the same as in a dream. Everything in a dream feels real, things more, there are objects, persons, fights, passions and so on - but when you wake up, you realize that everything was manufactured by the mind.

In the same way, the holographoc universe is projected by the moving unconscious mind. As the Hindu's would say its all a "Everything is dream of Brahman, who alone exists - everything else is Maya, an illusion".

The only real thing is not what is perceived, but the thing or rather "no thing" that does the perceiving.

The Nature of Time ...

Is that it's not up to Einstein, or Stephen Hawkings, but up to how many hours or even days it takes for my posts to get OK'd by mods. Hi Giles. It's getting longer and longer, and not worth my while even trying to post anymore since I cannot be a part of any ongoing discussion.

It's also my peculiar way of how I check my posts, call it right or wrong. I 'send' them and only then look at them for typos, or for whether I should word them differently. As it stands, I send them and never TBH see them again. So you are getting a sub-standard venetian.

Is there some politics going on?

V

Hi V

I'm responding on behalf of the mods, but informally ... ie not with 'hat' on

First, let me assure you that there is absolutely no question of 'politics'. It's simply that HP tends to be quieter at the weekends, and it has been so for years, which includes mods' online attendance. So if a matter has to be discussed, WE sometimes have to wait too for others to be available, and I do know that this can be frustrating.

As for checking one's own posts, we all have our different ways of using the forums, but the Preview facility is highly recommended before 'Submit Reply' ... as you say, for accidental typos, as well as checking that what we've said looks OK from the POV of how others might read it. As has often been said, much is down to interpretation of typed ... as opposed to spoken ... words which is why we also advocate using smileys.

Finally, the fact that you've made this post makes me wonder if indeed you did receive my PM of yesterday. I'm concerned that you may not have done so. Could you please check your inbox and let me know, perhaps best by reply PM?

Many thanks

Holistic

Hi there, if I may butt in on this discussion between V and the mods….

I’ve been meaning to add to this thread for ages, but have been so busy that it has been impossible to find the TIME so far. Ha ha!

Anyway, fascinating thread – thanks for posting the New Scientist link V, and James, you sound just like a Christian Scientist!

These are a few of Mary Baker Eddy’s observations on time:

[COLOR="Blue"]TIME. Mortal measurements; limits, in which are summed up all human acts, thoughts, beliefs, opinions, knowledge; matter; error; that which begins before, and continues after, what is termed death, until the mortal disappears and spiritual perfection appears. (Science and Health 595)

Time is a mortal thought, the divisor of which is the solar year. Eternity is God's measurement of Soul-filled years. (Science and Health 598)

Life is without beginning and without end. Eternity, not time, expresses the thought of Life, and time is no part of eternity. One ceases in proportion as the other is recognized. Time is finite; eternity is forever infinite. (Science and Health 468)

There’s a brilliant little pamphlet I’m sure that everyone writing on this thread would find interesting, called
Time, Space, Healing which is available here:

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]
New compilation of articles and testimonies written between 1983 and the present day. Articles are "More Understanding, Less Matter" by Laurance Doyle, "Conversation with Geoffrey Barratt" Interviewed by Jeffrey Hildner, "Beyond the Grapefruit" by Nathan A. Talbot, and "In Spiritual Healing, Matter Doesn't Matter" by Corinne Jane Teeter.

I don’t make any money of out this by the way! In fact, if anyone wants the pamphlet without having to send to the US for it, I would happily send one as a gift to anyone who PMs me with their address.

Both Doyle and Geoffrey Barratt talk about time and eternity. I remember Barrett says something like, “Eternity is not an endlessly long time, but is the absence of time.”

As many of you old-timers will know, I’m a great fan of Dr Laurence Doyle, astronomer and a principal investigator at the SETI Institute. Here are some of his observations:

"Science is when you compare your thoughts with those of the universe to see if they match."

"You're doing science when you take intelligence above the evidence of the senses.

....Nothing changed when you realised the earth was round. Nothing changed - you just went higher."

Here are some excerpts from an article titled "The metaphysics of space and time" which was an interview with Dr Doyle. Here, he is asked whether there is a link between the eternal realm and what appears as a human state of material things and he replies:

"I don’t – for the same reason I don’t think there’s a link between chalk and math, per se. If 2+2=4 is written on a chalkboard, the math isn’t in the chalk; the chalk is a finite way of looking at the truth…
……
You don’t find time turning into eternity, because the sum of all finite things doesn’t make the infinite, any more than the sum of mistakes makes a correct answer. So you can try to add up time to get eternity, but you’ll never get there. There isn’t a melding or an eventual evolution of material time-sense into an eternity time-sense. I think the eternity-sense exists, and time is a limited way of looking at things – a way that doesn’t coexist with eternity. It’s this limited way of looking at it that needs to be dispensed with."

"When people talk about the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, I always think of "2+2=4" And how old is that? We can talk about the origin of Roman numeral two’s, and we can talk about the origin of Arabic numeral two’s, because they’re symbols, but we can’t talk about the origin of the real two. So I would say time is dependent on matter - whereas an idea is not material and therefore doesn't involve time."

(from The Christian Science Sentinel Dec 30 2002)

I was hoping to include some quotes about time from the Time, Space, Healing pamphlet, but can’t find it!

Here is an article by Doyle on – not on time, but may still interest some of you:

[url] Do the spiritual math[/url]
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]“But where did error come from?” A mathematics analogy we are all familiar with has always helped me better understand how to answer this question.

Judy

There's an interesting Horizon program that you can watch on BBC IPlayer (I think it'll still be there until 23rd December) titled "Do you know what time it is?"

All Love and Reiki Hugs

There's an interesting Horizon program that you can watch on BBC IPlayer (I think it'll still be there until 23rd December) titled "Do you know what time it is?"

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Just watched the above link. Really interesting and thought provoking!:)

I found it became quite profound towards the end when Prof. Brian Cox talked about Einstein’s space-time/past, present, future theories. I thought for a moment he was going to expand into a more philosophical approach to the question of what time is but then he launched back into quantum mechanics again. Oh well, such is the practical, scientific human mind, hey?

Oh and I am not saying that quantum mechanics isn’t part of the answer, it is and is really fascinating, but it depends on what the question is in the first place as to its relevance. Anyway, I will leave you all to it. I just really wanted to say what a fascinating programme Giles link was and well worth a look if that is your thing.

RxXx

Just like to add my simple version of this time thing.
Time here is measured as related to going round the sun etc. how would it be done in deep space with no references.
Second I've thought of time as ripples and we as a cork in those ripples. We experience the actual time ripple we are on but the future ripples and past ripples are all occurring at the same time, we the cork have to waite until the future ripples reach us.
Spiritual energies appear to move effortless across the ripples, revealing events that are happening but not yet experienced by us.
Could involve the infinite phases associated with some of the relativity theories.

Hi Scommstech,

Time here is measured as related to going round the sun etc. how would it be done in deep space with no references.

Just to pick up on the above point.
Time, in ancient times was measured as the movement of the sun, the seasons in the year etc.
Modern measurement of time is through the decay of atomic particles using an atomic clock, although science still refers back to the old ways of measurement when necessary.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

I MISS VENETIAN POSTS!

Why is he banned?

Is a very interesting person, very cultured, and honest sounding. what the hell happened? Is Venetian a scientologist or what? (joking).

mods hat on

Hi Fadette,

As I'm sure you'll understand, we cannot discuss details about other members account either on or off the forum. Banning of a member is almost always done after discussion by the moderating team (except for obvious spammers) and we always aim to work with the member first to allow them to remain as a member without banning where possible, sometimes resulting in a temporary moderation until it is clear they are posting within the guidelines again. Banning is really the last option. Please also note that some bannings are done on a temporary basis to allow the member a "cooling off" period after which they will be permitted to return if they wish.

So, please be assured that banning has not taken place without good cause and members will be made well aware of the reasons for their banning.

mods hat off

Ok. thanks. hope Venetian will cool off and be allowed to come back some day. I know Im ignorant of the facts behind the matter. He was feeding discussion with good points I thought, but personally I do not know him nor have researched his many posts to "judge"...

thank you anyway for the reply.

Ok. thanks. hope Venetian will cool off and be allowed to come back some day. I know Im ignorant of the facts behind the matter. He was feeding discussion with good points I thought, but personally I do not know him nor have researched his many posts to "judge"...

thank you anyway for the reply.

To find, beg, steal or borrow a hula hoop! You are to hula hoop both ways for 10 minutes every night for the next three nights. Then you are to ride your horse at the canter, and marvel at your improved seat!

You can see time in any way that pleases you to see it

I hope to revive this interesting discussion, however because I don't have a scientific background and don't align myself with scientific points of view, I would like to look at the question of time from a different perspective.

Usually when I meet a very difficult question, the first book that I reference is the most important book in the world (in my opinion), the Bible.

If we are talking about what goes on in the world and accept that God created all of it, then we can look at Genesis I (first book of the Bible). Its easiest to find an example based on oneself, so lets start with how God created man.

"The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground."

Obviously at this point, man did not move, and man was not man at all, but a mere clay figurine.

after God "blew into his nostril the breath of life and so Man became a living being."

Now lets look at what happened. There was a biological mass that could live but was not alive. God transfered some of his spirit into the biological mass and the mass began to live and became man. When a person is born and begins to live it means that his biological body moves through time from birth to death. In my understanding, time is the spirit of God that gave life. When a person dies, their time ends, for that particular person.

And now we can go to Chapter I of the first story of creation, it says that,

"In the beginning when God created the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth was a formless wasteland and darkness covered the Abyss while a mighty wind swept over the waters."

The same pattern as with a human being, first a formless, lifeless mass.

"Then God said let there be light and there was light. God saw how good the light was and seperated the Light from the darkness. God called the light day and the darkness he called night."

Obviously, God could not breathe his spirit into the mass that was to become the earth as it had no nostril and God had to do something else. Obviously that something else was that God put his spirit into the light that soaked all the matter created by him, except that which was left lightless and which he called darkness. In modern physics, this can be referred to as "Dark Matter".

The phrase that Wind was over the water is a reference to God's spirit that was not able to penetrate the matter that was to become the Earth.

From this moment, time began to run, it says in the bible that "the evening came and the morning followed - the first day." After this, time as we know it began moving, days, weeks, months, years etc.

In my understanding, time is God's spirit that lives through the universe. One can say that the Universe itself is a living thing.

This is why its very difficult to say whether time really exists or not. Maybe it all depends on whether you believe in God's spirit or not. Coming back to dark matter, it would be matter without time as we know it. Like a dead body of a living being, it does not act in the manner of a living being.

Referring to how time can be measured, it will depend on who is measuring it. Speaking of measuring time, no one has measured time by itself, but rather measured its passage in terms of measuring some physical event.

the fact remains that you can not find a single object that exists independant of the observer.

This is why I find it strange to relate time to a watch that was used by someone, somewhere at some point of time.

I have a watch, it does that for me, therefore time exists.

First of all, if something can measure something else, that is not conclusive proof that whatever it is measuring actually exists. For example, I can make a claim that space goblins exist, for I have made a device that measures the amount of space goblins around me. Because my space goblin detection device exists, therefore, space goblins exist.

On the contrary, it seems to me that every object, organic or inorganic has its own time that depends on the amount of God's spirit that is contained in that particular object. We can only try to bring all these "times" into one central "time" since we are all interconnected to each other through the same time spirit. Time, as God's spirit, is what brings us all to life.

The same difference that exists on earth between "living" and "dead" organic matter, exists in space between matter and dark matter. The difference between them is time.

There's a Zen koan: "If the tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it fall, does it make a noise?"

Lastly, I dont know what relationship koan has to time, we see time from a linear perspective, but koan is a parable that is not linear. In the sense that koan never has enough information to solve it. For example, any linear question, 2+2= ? , there is everything present that is needed in order to solve it. There is only one action, addition, and you will get the answer.

The aforemention koan reminds me of such a problem, if a room has a candle that has burned out and the room is empty, then there will there be darkness in the room? The answer is, not necessarily, no one said that when the candle was burning there was darkness, the candle might have been burning during the day. The amount of answers can be endless.

At the above koan, one can respond that not necessarily, a tree will make a noise. No one said that the tree was large, maybe it was a tiny tree that was bitten by a rabbit and fell without a sound.

This really is a fascinating discussion! I'd like to see it revived too.

It's interesting how, as a few people commented earlier, there's ongoing debate among scientists as to exactly what time is, and whether or not it really exists. But most of the greatest thinkers in the quantum physics field - serious scientists, not just people playing around with interesting but unprovable theories - have concluded that time is ultimately an illusion.

Here's a quote (which I found in this article, "[url]Time masters[/url]") from Albert Einstein, writing to the widow of a friend who had recently died: "To those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present, and future, is only an illusion, if a stubborn one." This surely has to do with the growing evidence - again, as earlier participants in this discussion said - that matter, too, is ultimately an illusion. The deeper we look into it, the less and less substance we find.

What's the connection between time and matter? I would say that essentially, time is a way of measuring matter - where it is and how it changes. Time (and space) can only have meaning in relation to matter. And if matter has no objective existence, then neither can time.

Matter and the measurements we use for it - space and time - are also inherently limited and limiting. I remember hearing a physicist interviewed on the radio, who put it this way: two material objects can't be in exactly the same place at the same time. They can be in different places at the same time, or in the same place at different times - but not both!

What's more, matter is basically unstable and impermanent. Anything that's made of matter (or seems to be) is inevitably subject to deterioration and decay. That makes time a measurement of the inexorable decay - the mortality - of matter.

I would guess that most people on these forums would consider themselves spiritual, and spiritually minded. That means different things to different people, naturally, but I expect many of us would agree that spirituality - spiritual "be-ing" - is something completely above and beyond these mortal factors of time and space and matter. Which brings us to the question that the previous post brought up: Where does God come into all this?

I have some thoughts I'd like to share there too, but I'll start a new post so that this one doesn't go on for, well, eternity...

If time and matter are an illusion, were they created by God?

I can only speak for myself, but that concept just doesn't make sense to me. Some of the best names I know for God are Spirit, Truth, Life, and Love. How could God possibly create anything opposed to His/Her nature - matter, illusion, mortality, anything that's not worthy of love?

SeaWay brought up the Book of Genesis in the Bible, which I agree is the best place to look in order to find out about God. But it's vital to realise that there are actually two completely separate creation stories in Genesis: one in chapter 1, the other in chapter 2. Historically, they were written at different times by different people, and later compiled into the one collection. They aren't talking about the same thing at all; they can't be, because they completely contradict each other.

To me, the second account describes creation as (mis)understood by the mortal, human mind - the false, limited sense of being that cognises everything as matter (or at best, as partly material and partly spiritual). In this mythological account, we have God forming man and everything else out of matter: essentially, by somehow infusing life into a pile of mud. And if you read the rest of the story, it just goes downhill from there.

The first account, conversely, has God - whom I also know as the one divine Mind - creating everything, effortlessly and perfectly, out of His/Her pure thought and will: "And God said, Let there be... and it was so... and behold, it was very good." This - not the time/space/matter illusion - is all that God sees and knows, right now; it's where the whole infinite universe (including us!) exists eternally as God's idea. Again, matter - mortal limitation - just can't be any part of this, and so time can't be either.

I understand SeaWay's point about "the evening and the morning" motif in that account of creation seeming to indicate the passage of time. But where it says "In the beginning...", is this really a beginning as in time? If so, there must have been something before that "beginning"... what, then? Was God just sitting there doing nothing until He finally got so bored He thought "I know, I'll make something!"...? Again, that just doesn't make sense.

Or is this creation account "the beginning" in the sense of the one and only, timeless, eternal origin of all that is? The "evenings and mornings" in this account - and indeed, the light itself - are there before the sun and stars are created. So they can't be the measurement of time in days and years. I see them as metaphorical: the progressive "dawnings" of a clearer and fuller perception of what God is, revealed in His/Her self-expression, or creation - endlessly unfolding, yet eternally complete.

I'm convinced it's as we progressively give up the illusion of being bound by time and matter, and start to discover what God is and what we all truly are as God's creation, that we'll start to see this eternal spiritual reality breaking through into human experience in tangible, transforming, healing ways. I know I've caught at least a few glimpses of that in my own life, and I'm sure many others have too.

For anyone who's interested, here's a link to the most illumining explanation I've ever read of the opening chapters of Genesis, from Mary Baker Eddy's book [url]Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures[/url].

Love to all,

Charis

If time and matter are an illusion, were they created by God?

I can only speak for myself, but that concept just doesn't make sense to me. Some of the best names I know for God are Spirit, Truth, Life, and Love. How could God possibly create anything opposed to His/Her nature - matter, illusion, mortality, anything that's not worthy of love?

At this point I'd have to disagree.

Time and matter are not an illusion. They do exist. Just because matter changes form (as does time) does not mean that the 'impermanence' of them causes them to cease to exist. Matter is energy (as in Einsten's famous equation of E=mc^2) and energy cannot be created or destroyed, it simply changes form. Time is a 2 dimensional scientific principle applies to matter/energy. It exists as much as anything, otherwise we wouldn't have a name for it or measure it.

"Were they created by God?" Depends on your concept of what God is. By your second paragraph this gives the impression that you perceive God to be something other from your Self i.e. you are not a part of God but somehow God is some Superior other that has overpowering control over you and everything.

"How could God possibly create anything opposed to His/Her nature - matter, illusion, mortality, anything that's not worthy of love?" Why do you consider matter, illusion, mortality to be opposed to God's nature? Why do you consider these things to not be worthy of love? Is that not being judgemental on your part? You are considering that you know what should and shouldn't be loved within the whole of the universe/nature. Let's say a man kills somebody in an accident and the family of the deceased choose to hate him (rather than love him), yet there are still people (such as his mother) who love him. In himself he cannot be both something of love and of hate, these are just perceptions of those other people, but the fact that love is seen in him means that love must exist regardless of those who cannot see that love in him. There is love in everything.

Time is a concept (2 dimensional, 1 being a point in time and the other being a period of time) created by mankind to measure change. If mankind is God in themSelves then God created time.

SeaWay brought up the Book of Genesis in the Bible, which I agree is the best place to look in order to find out about God. But it's vital to realise that there are actually two completely separate creation stories in Genesis: one in chapter 1, the other in chapter 2. Historically, they were written at different times by different people, and later compiled into the one collection. They aren't talking about the same thing at all; they can't be, because they completely contradict each other.

To me, the second account describes creation as (mis)understood by the mortal, human mind - the false, limited sense of being that cognises everything as matter (or at best, as partly material and partly spiritual). In this mythological account, we have God forming man and everything else out of matter: essentially, by somehow infusing life into a pile of mud. And if you read the rest of the story, it just goes downhill from there.

The first account, conversely, has God - whom I also know as the one divine Mind - creating everything, effortlessly and perfectly, out of His/Her pure thought and will: "And God said, Let there be... and it was so... and behold, it was very good." This - not the time/space/matter illusion - is all that God sees and knows, right now; it's where the whole infinite universe (including us!) exists eternally as God's idea. Again, matter - mortal limitation - just can't be any part of this, and so time can't be either.

If everything in the universe is created out of God's thought and will then God's thought and will is itself matter and time and thus limited by your own definition, and even the things you are considering an illusion are an illusion of God's own mind. If you choose to say that these are illusions and therefore don't exist, then you are saying that the mind of God does not exist and therefore disproving the existence of God, which in itself is a paradox.
Maybe it's just the wording you are using as written on the forum, but what you describe offers no proof whatsoever that time and matter is illusiory, and your description of impermanence suggests that you believe these things cease to exist at some point in time (in which case time must exist).

I understand SeaWay's point about "the evening and the morning" motif in that account of creation seeming to indicate the passage of time. But where it says "In the beginning...", is this really a beginning as in time? If so, there must have been something before that "beginning"... what, then? Was God just sitting there doing nothing until He finally got so bored He thought "I know, I'll make something!"...? Again, that just doesn't make sense.

This is the problem with creationism. It implies that there was a point in time at which everything came into existence, but if that is the case then you are creating a "beginning" and in terms of the concepts of time, where there is a beginning to something it must have something before that point in time, because time is limitless in it's second dimension. I cannot just start with nothing before, because "before" is time itself.

Or is this creation account "the beginning" in the sense of the one and only, timeless, eternal origin of all that is? The "evenings and mornings" in this account - and indeed, the light itself - are there before the sun and stars are created. So they can't be the measurement of time in days and years. I see them as metaphorical: the progressive "dawnings" of a clearer and fuller perception of what God is, revealed in His/Her self-expression, or creation - endlessly unfolding, yet eternally complete.

Unless.... everything has always existed. It is a limitation of the human mind and the concept of time perhaps to think that things have to have been created from something. The idea of creation brings up the 'need' to have something create it, and this is what leads some to consider that there must be an 'other' or 'God' who did this, simply because the comprehension of everything always Being here seems beyond them.

I'm convinced it's as we progressively give up the illusion of being bound by time and matter, and start to discover what God is and what we all truly are as God's creation, that we'll start to see this eternal spiritual reality breaking through into human experience in tangible, transforming, healing ways. I know I've caught at least a few glimpses of that in my own life, and I'm sure many others have too.

Or we could consider that we are ourselves God in terms of all being One, and that the 'creation' of the universe is due to our own perceptions of what is and what has always existed?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hello Giles,

I'm only very new on these forums, but I can see you're a moderator. I'm just a little surprised and disappointed that a moderator would step in and flatly refute everything I've said, simply because s/he is coming from the standpoint of a different spiritual teaching.

Are my differing convictions about time, matter and God such a threat to your own that you need to slam them (and me) as if your life depended on it - and in absolute, unqualified language, as if there could be no other legitimate way of looking at these things? Whenever I'm writing, I try to preface what I'm saying with frequent little qualifiers like "To me..." or "As I understand it..." - just to show that, although I believe what I'm saying is true, I respect the fact that others may not agree... and indeed, that I don't know everything. I certainly don't have any right to set myself up as a personal authority on what everyone else should believe about the nature of divinity, or existence, or anything.

I am coming from the perspective of a specific spiritual teaching, and perhaps I should have been more upfront about it: I'm a Christian Scientist. I'm aware there's at least one other who contributes to these forums sometimes - Principled (Judy) - so I guess I was hoping my views wouldn't be completely alien to everyone here.

I could easily go through and rip up all your arguments just as you did to mine, Giles, but what would be the point? We simply don't agree, that's all. And to me, that's actually ok. You won't change what I believe, and I certainly don't expect to change what you believe. So couldn't we agree to disagree without treating someone who differs as if she's just committed an offence against God?

(And no, I don't believe that you are God. But that's ok... neither am I. )

Hello Giles,

I'm only very new on these forums, but I can see you're a moderator. I'm just a little surprised and disappointed that a moderator would step in and flatly refute everything I've said, simply because s/he is coming from the standpoint of a different spiritual teaching.

Hello Charis,

Moderators are members of the forum just as anyone, except we moderate as well as post.

It's fair in any discussion on a forum that folks will disagree, as Giles has with you. Giles did start his reply with:

At this point I'd have to disagree.

Therefore his points and argument are just as valid as any other poster on the forum.

From my own POV this is a scientific forum and not faith or philisophical, and therefore to debate the subject from a point from a religious stand point, could be seen as being off topic.

However, it's an interesting debate and personally it would be great if we could see the point of physics brought into the argument.

Namaste,
Myarka.

Hello Giles,

I'm only very new on these forums, but I can see you're a moderator. I'm just a little surprised and disappointed that a moderator would step in and flatly refute everything I've said, simply because s/he is coming from the standpoint of a different spiritual teaching.

I am really sorry, but probably the moderator shouldn't be exempt from taking part in the discussion. I personally value all points of view that misalign with my world view because their challenges show any potential faults that I might have in my own view. Discussion is in it's nature, a disagreement because if there are no disagreements, there are no discussions. Everyone attributes value to every one else's point of view, but at the same time keeps their own point of view in mind.
I once read that truth is borne from arguments. We should value our arguments, because how else will we see our own errors so that we could correct them?
　

But where it says "In the beginning...", is this really a beginning as in time? If so, there must have been something before that "beginning"... what, then?

then you are creating a "beginning" and in terms of the concepts of time, where there is a beginning to something it must have something before that point in time, because time is limitless in it's second dimension. I cannot just start with nothing before, because "before" is time itself.

It is very difficult to understand how a linear mind can give understanding as to something that occurs within non linear space. How can a person that exists within time can exit it's limits? For example, a circle is completely different from a straight line, but we can turn one into the other.

Time is a concept (2 dimensional, 1 being a point in time and the other being a period of time) created by mankind to measure change. If mankind is God in themSelves then God created time.

If we make a line from a circle, then the line will be limited in space but a circle itself is limitless in space. How can it be? Here space comes into play, a line is considered to exist in one dimension, but a circle exists in 2 dimensions. So any point of time should exist in some period of time like a dot on a straight line. So it is still probably a two dimensional phenomena, like a circle in comparison to a line, but who knows?
　

The idea of creation brings up the 'need' to have something create it, and this is what leads some to consider that there must be an 'other' or 'God' who did this, simply because the comprehension of everything always Being here seems beyond them.

Considering the "beginning" problem, once again one cannot get out of the framework of time to say that something begun, this is why its better to refer to an example. If we take a mobius strip, it is an object that exists in a 3 dimensional space, but in actuality it only has one side, like a line in space. If you will put a dot at any point of the mobius strip, and move in any directions, then you will return to the same dot. It is a line that has no beginning and no end. However, when we need to tell a story, we need to have a beginning point for the story and because we exist on this strip, we start at an arbitrarily selected point that is neither a beginning nor an end, but we call a beginning, just to have a point of reference. After all, the Bible was written by people and it would have been impossible for a person to reference any "points" without invoking concepts of time.
　
　
　

Hi everyone,

I was surprised to see this thread resurrected! (Oops, is that a religious term!)

I really suggest that everyone goes back to Venetian's opening post:

A very thought-provoking article in New Scientist of November ...

Is the nature of time the central mystery to solve in order to understand the nature of the universe? (Or does it not really even matter?) Does time even exist? Or is it an illusion? Or maybe it pops into and out of existence?

If it's an illusion, that has deep implications in support of the mystical view of reality.

V

As you can see, V introduced the mystical (spiritual) view of reality from post one, so it's hardly surprising that we have had more (including my own) and besides, we all agreed years ago that on HP, most people here have some sort of spiritual connection, so we simply can't have 100% atheistic/secular-type discussions!

You can't actually access the whole article that V gave the link to (perhaps you could in 2008 when this was first posted, but this is from it:

Physicists have become increasingly argumentative about what exactly time is. because this is now being recognised as perhaps the most fundamental question of all. For decades they have been attempting to wed quantum mechanics, our theory of how very small things behave, to relativity, our theory of how space, time and matter interact. This would give us the long-sought-after theory of quantum gravity that describes the entire universe.

These observations below, are just some that to me show that natural scientists in the 21st Century are at last beginning to approach the radical revelation that Mary Baker Eddy had in 1866 - that "All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation" (Science and Health 468) therefore there is, in ultimate reality, no matter, (and no time)!

“I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Spacetime, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been, from their beginning, among the humbler contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.”
DONALD HOFFMAN
Cognitive Scientist, UC, Irvine; Author, “Visual Intelligence”

“Although quantum theory is an abstruse and formidable field, its philosophical and theological implications reduce to one shattering effect: the overthrow of matter…For some 200 years… nearly all leading scientists shared these materialistic assumptions [that the foundation of nature is based on solid and impenetrable particles] based on sensory and deterministic logic…The contemporary intellectual, denying God, is in a trap, and he projects his entrapment onto the world in a kind of secular suicide. But the world is not entrapped; man is not finite; the human mind is not bound in material brain.”
George Gilder,Founding Editor or Forbes ASAP; Fellow International Engineering Consortium; Recipient of White House Award for Entrepreneurial Excellence

“Willis Hannon, Roger Sperry, and others have speculated that Western society is on the verge of a ‘second Copernican revolution,’ in which the dominant attitudes will evolve into a belief in consciousness as the primary ‘stuff of the universe.’
Charles Leighton
“A Change of Heart”, American Journal of Nursing,

Judy

I guess what I was trying to say earlier could be summed up as: from the standpoint of the teaching I follow, time and matter (and mortality) are limitations that can't possibly exist within, or come from, the One infinite divine Spirit or Mind (God), in whom "we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28). Those limitations could only be products of the limited, human, mortal mind (which is not God) - the false perception we're all gradually learning, in our own way, to give up in place of the true.

That's just how I see it as a student of Christian Science. I wasn't trying to suggest at all that a moderator (or anyone) didn't have the right to disagree with my viewpoint, and to explain why! It was just that after "At this point I'd have to disagree" - which I did see - everything Giles wrote seemed to be framed in terms of this-is-right-so-you-are-wrong. I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, Giles. I just felt it could have been more gently put, that's all.

And you're right, Myarka, this forum is on science, not religion. I don't see those as separable, but this definitely isn't the place for a religious debate. I don't think anywhere is!

Love to all,

Charis

Dearest all
As a student of Christian Science, it seems to me impossible that time exist as a fact, but I also find it of no use to convince others of it, as I cannot even convince myself of this fact
so I leave it in the hands of time to reveal it to all, and time shall be self destruct, as all error does in time.
Regards Meta