It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# How time does not exist, what it really is and how it limits our life.

page: 7
22
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 05:39 PM
I can't believe people still think time exists. I especially think its funny when people say, "Time does exist! Scientists says so! They have theories about it!".

The only thing that exists is this current moment of "now", which is constantly changing. The planets rotate, atoms vibrate, stars pulsate... this motion, this constant state of change, is what causes the illusion of time.

A clock is designed to change at a constant rate to help us measure this constant change, which I think is funny. We start the clock at 0:00 and let it constantly change, and when it reaches 1:00 we proclaim an hour of time has passed. We think 0:01 is one moment, 0:02 was another moment, 0:03 another... etc.. but that is all wrong. There was only ONE moment, that is NOW. The clock is just changing in this one moment.

Because of our memories, we remember when the clock said 0:01, and we refer to that as "the past" when the clock changes to 0:30. But the past doesn't exist, and never existed. When the clock said 0:01, it was still NOW, the clock just changed.

Since we know the clock is designed to constantly change, we know that sooner or later it will say 12:00. We refer to that as the future. The future doesn't exist... only now exists, and the assumption everything will continue to change.

You would think after "time dilation" was discovered, this realization that time doesn't exist would occur. But instead the ridiculous notion of timespace was invented. Of course your atomic clocks will tick faster when they move at faster velocities. That is because at faster velocities all the atoms of the clock are changing faster.

edit on 10-2-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 12:48 PM

Hi WeAreOne,

Nice post,
Very insightful, and I personally think you are right. In fact I wrote the book on it "A Brief History of Timelessness"
( www.amazon.co.uk... )
And here's one of a number of videos I produced on the subject of Timelessness.

We should note that just 'saying' time exists, or time does not exist is pointless unless we cover every observation in the world that we attribute to time, and successfully explain them ( which i think i have done Timelessly in the book)

In my opinion, it's important to decide whether

we are *right* to assume a thing called time exists, *or*
whether we are *wrong* to assume a thing called time exists.

If we are wrong, then perhaps *"things just exist and change"* (period).

People may call a hand rotating on a dial a *"clock"* but this may be just a loaded and misleading name for a *_Motor_*, ie something that only actually proves that motorised hands can go round in circles - and which does also *not* prove that, as things move a thing called time needs to exist and pass.

ie the assumption "as things move a thing called time needs to exist and pass", may *only* be an assumption. And only seems to be true, and *_seems_* to be confirmed if imposed on the world.
(a bit like imposing the idea "ghosts exist and are invisible" on the world... and then assuming that because ghosts are not seen anywhere, that this proves, they exist and are invisible).
.

Re our *"memories"*, again i agree, we basically have to consider that all our minds are , are stuff that is here , and that can be changing. A *"memory"* is just like a very sophisticated footprint in mud - ie all it proves is that one thing can impress and change another (eg an image on your retina can be changing the contents of your mind) - but it does not prove that a "temporal" or time based *"past"* is ever created or existing, or 'constantly growing and exceeding'.

*"Is there a Past, OR is there Not a past"*

if there is a past ,then there is a past - but anyone claiming this should provide some proof following the scientific method.
but if you Google "scientific proof the past exists" ( goo.gl... ) you don't find a single proof.

(As you say people assume - "Time does exist! Scientists says so! They have theories about it!". But as Feynman said any theory is useless unless you have an experiment to back it up - ie to claim there is a past and a future and not just 'change' you have to Prove there actually is a past and future, and not just call impressions, (here 'now') in your mind "memories of the past" - or call ideas in your mind (which again are just 'here now') "thoughts about 'the future'"

- (But also make no mistake Relativity etc is essentially correct and very important - but it may (imo) just be about dilated 'rates of change' ('now') - and not about the dilation of the flow of a thing called time)

- also imo - no part of Relativity (Electrodynamics paper) proves times existence - it seems only to be assumed ( see - sites.google.com... ) )

(Note also you have it back to front re moving objects , Atomic 'clocks' etc change more slowly at high velocities)

Anyway, as i say, nice post, and i agree, here's another, longer video I produced on the subject, take a look if your interested.

m.marsden
www.timelessness.co.uk

if anyone wants to assert that there is a thing
edit on 12-2-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 05:26 PM

ps . slight typo

Re our *"memories"*, again i agree, we basically have to consider that all our minds are , are stuff that is here , and that can be changing. A *"memory"* is just like a very sophisticated footprint in mud - ie all it proves is that one thing can impress and change another (eg an image on your retina can be changing the contents of your mind) - but it does not prove that a "temporal" or time based *"past"* is ever created or existing, or 'constantly growing and exceeding'.

see 1:04 onwards in the 2nd video re 'the past existing or not'
mm
edit on 12-2-2014 by mattmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:17 AM
Time is relative and the only 'objective' thing about time is the physical clock or watch that exists, and even that is only objective because we are told to keep all watches and clocks synchronized so that we, as a society, can plan things and make meetings or schedules together.

Without a physical object counting numbers, we would not know 'time' because 'time' is something personal.

That is why 20 minutes can feel like an hour to one person but 5 minutes to another.

posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 10:52 AM

HI arpgme,

With respect, i kind of agree, but i think your point can be simplified further.

e.g. Unless we can prove time and the past and the future exist, then any any statement about ‘it’ may be moot.

I think matter exists and can move and interact, leading us to probably incorrectly conclude that another thing ‘time’ also exists. Particularly if we misinterpret the patterns that form in our minds and ‘call’ them ‘memories of the past’ – when they are in fact just patterns existing in our minds.

Thus, motion is relative, a physical ‘clock’ is just a misleadingly named motor.

Time isn’t personal, imo, it doesn’t exist, a lot of fast, interesting stuff can be happening on one persons mind, and slow boring stuff in another, which is why a conversation etc might seem to be flowing rapidly to one person but slowly to another.

m.marsden
(auth "a brief history of timelessness' - www.timelessness.co.uk)

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 07:45 AM

What really defines time is causality - action A leads to consequence B and consequence B leads to eventuality C and eventuality C is the present pertaining to the next action - this is time as "choice incremental" - and only occurs because action A is the product of a sentient being.

When we avoid "acting" and open our perceptions to "potential" we realise a "timeless state" - experienced when ones mind is concealed from ones circumstances.

Actions are only possible "in time" and to be in a timeless state is to exist without affecting the mechanisms of reality - the crux is that the individual exists due to actions that resulted in his being.

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 03:34 PM

Hi SystemResistor,

With respect, here’s the thing, your post seems to imply you think time exists, e.g in that ‘it ‘ can be defined, and... “What really defines time is causality”. But also that a “timeless state“ can be reached.
I think things may be simpler, and there may only be a timeless state, in which things exist and change, and we wrongly assume an extra ‘time’ thing exists.

Re, “time defined by causality”, logically, if it can be shown that causality is not a defining aspect of a thing called time, then logically you may consider that thus we may be wrong to assume a thing called ‘time’ exists.

Consider the action of a golf club ‘A’, swinging northwest, striking a golf ball ‘B’.

The action ‘A’ is just the motion of an existing object in a physical direction. The interaction happens where A meets B, and the consequence or effect is the ball also heading northwest.

In other words, it is consistently scientifically demonstratable that ‘effects’, happen physically in front of , and in the direction of ‘causes’.

And, wherever we see one thing causing another thing to do something, (imo) we do not see anything ‘coming out of a past’, and causing an effect ‘in a future’ – we just see object A, causing an effect on B, in a physical direction, if they are interacting.

(Not quite sure action A has to be “the product of a sentient being”)

Re “When we avoid "acting" and open our perceptions to "potential" we realise a "timeless state"”
I agree we can realise a timeless state, but that may be through relalising we may be wrong to initially even assume ‘time’ exists, as opposed to ‘just matter existing and interacting’.

Re “Actions are only possible "in time" and to be in a timeless state is to exist without affecting the mechanisms of reality - the crux is that the individual exists due to actions that resulted in his being.”

Kind of lost me there a bit, i think it’s simpler, unless you can prove there ‘is’ a past and/or future, then I don’t think we need say “Actions are only possible "in time". Instead, perhaps, everything is just here moving and changing, and “actions are only possible where matter exists and moves” , i.e. pretty much everywhere. - Just my thoughts,

Matthew Marsden
(timelessness.co.uk)

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 12:35 AM
Because of "the moment" there is no time. Because of yourself, that which experiences the moment, there is no time. It's because we are ourselves.

- - - - - - -

Let's compare our lives with a river.

The source is our birth, the time we exist is the stream, and the mouth in the sea is our death (RIP).

All three; source, stream, and mouth exist at the same time namely the moment we experience.

Thank you.

new topics

top topics

22