Originally posted by Frosty
Of coarse time exist just as space exist (unless you think space does not exist, then my postceeding arguement is moot).
But does it exist objectively or is it just an illusion that our minds perceive because of our own level of awareness? Would a tree perceive "space"
or "time"? Would an insect? And if there is no such thing as time, could there even be such a thing as space? If speed is equal to space/time and
time is made to be 0 (if it doesn't exist), then speed would become infinity, which would imply that you can be ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE
simultaneously, which in effect would render space non-existant, or rather it would simply become another "absolete concept" that no longer has any
meaning since it so heavily depends on the existance of a "time".
Also, considering that what you perceive as space is only a 3-dimentional perception, what about 4-dimentional or 5-dimentional space? Would you even
call it space then, or would it be something entirely different which has no analagous correlation to what you now perceive as "space"? Also, the
existance of time creates an inherent contradiction which suggests to me that if time exists then nothing can exist, and since something does exist,
then time must be an illusion, or rather, a simultaneous existance of all possibilities in an infinite number of possible realities which only SEEM to
"change" because our consciousness focuses on these different potentials to make them into a "reality". Kinda like putting a video tape into VCR
and pressing "play", even though the entire movie is already there, we're just choosing to watch it one frame at a time.
I know I explained this idea already like a year ago in a thread here
me quickly summarize it here.
Since something exists (and something, in some form, DOES exist, because I think/perceive something, even if it is unclear WHAT I am seeing or what I
am, the point is that if I can PERCEIVE and THINK, even if it is all an illusion, it still exists as an illusion, it is a SOMETHING not a NOTHING),
then something has ALWAYS existed. Why has something always existed? Because something can never come out of nothing. If there was ever absolute
nothingness, meaning, nothing at all exists at any level shape or form, then nothing would eternally exist. Since something exists, then SOMETHINIG
(regardless of what it is) has ALWAYS existed! Meaning, there is no BEGINNING to existance itself, because beginning implies a point of "coming into
being" or "point of creation" - and NOTHING does not have the resources or capability to create ANYTHING, so SOMETHING has always ALWAYS
Ok so why do I say time cannot exist? Because if something has eternally existed (and it must have for anything to ever exist), then at any point in
time, there will always be an infinity of time in the past behind it. So that means, if we exist here and now, then there is an infinite past of
existance of some sort behind us. But there is a fundemental problem with this - an eternity cannot exist behind us in the past, because this implies
that we "went through eternity of time" to get to where we are now, but we cannot go through eternity because as soon as you go through eternity it
is no longer eternity, it then is actually something finite.
And of course the problem is, in order for anything to exist at any point in time, there HAS TO BE an infinity of time behind it in the past, since we
determined that there cannot be a BEGINNING to all of creation, since something can never come out of nothing. And once again, if there is an infinity
of time behind us in the past (and there must be!), it is impossible, because then it would not be infinity since infinity cannot be reached.
So my conclusion is, if time DOES exist, then in order for anything to exist, infinity of time must've been reached, considering there is no
beginning to existance. I hope it is apparent by now that there is definite contradiction there, something that needs to be resolved.
One possible resolution to this contradiction is that time is an illusion, and that there is no "timeline" at all, and that all things exist
simultaneously in 0 time, so an infinite number of possibilities all exist as an infinite potential, and it is when consciousness (creative force,
God, whatever you wanna call it) focuses upon itself, does anything really "come into existance", even though it is only an illusion which is
created in the "mind" of the observer, or the consciousness that is focusing its perception on a certain potentiality.
Of course I can be wrong, or partially wrong, or maybe I am right - there are no absolute guarantees in anything, absolute conviction does not help
determine the truth of anything, and the only way to really learn and understand our reality is to always remain open to being wrong and constantly
questioning all things and checking and rechecking the data, and seeing if your hypothesis can be verified. If there is a problem, we must not get
attached to these hypothesis and make them into beliefs, and must be ready to just toss the out the window and make new ones if reality does not match
what we initially assumed it was.
These are just some thoughts I had. One thing I understand is, what we see is NOT necessarily what really is, and we can easily be deceived by all
sorts of mirages and illusions and misconceptions and biases both philosophically, esoterically, and literally speaking, so just because we perceive
something as "time" and "space" does not mean it really exists just as we perceive it to exist.
And it would be rather presumptuous and foolish to declare something as "real" because our senses, which are so often wrong, say it is. People tried
that with the whole "flat earth" idea at some point, and eventually that assumption had to be "let go".
What would earth look like for an entity that can perceive reality in 4 dimentions? Would it be spherical or something else entirely? Considering our
eyes only see the surfaces of all things, and not things as they really are (inside and out and from all sides), we already have direct knowledge that
our eyes deceive us all the time.
Anyways, approaching the idea of "time" can be done through different methods as I said earlier, and at least for me, it always leads to it being an
illusion. What is the exact nature of this illusion, why is it there, and if it is an illusion, then what is reality, and is there even such a thing
as "reality" or is everything an illusion and depends on the observer? I think the latter is true, that your perception of what is reality depends
on your knowledge and level of awareness, and when you grow out of a certain level of awareness, then the past level becomes an absolete illusion, and
you realise that it never really existed, you just weren't able to see beyond it.