I am quite confused as to what “time” actually is. The different aspects of practical time are the forward motion of past, present, and future. Now the present is a product of the past, which itself was at one point a present. Thus the present, as part of the past, becomes the future through time’s forward motion. Now the present is current time, the past is previous time and the future is later time. It is current time which we relate past and future to. If this is the case, then all past time was at one point present time; but since all present time is the result of a past time, all present time is actually future time. The future, in this sense of time, doesn’t exist as anything other than the present. For, to become the future, time must pass from past to present. If time passes from present to future, then the future becomes present, and the previous present becomes past. The future, as it is normally depicted, doesn’t actually exist. A future that is reached, without a realization or actuality, is nothing more than speculation. The present itself is nothing more than the continuous motion of the past. And if this is the case, then all of time is the alteration of the past, and thus all of time is present. Is this the true nature of time?
Actual time, scientifically represented, is a relation between two objects. We measure time using the repetitive count of 60. This count is broken into three; hours, minutes, and seconds. Seconds being the fastest count and each ending cycle resulting in a minute, and each 60 minutes resulting in an hour. This time system is then integrated into our notion of days, weeks, months, years, etc. In this view of time, time is relative to other time. Many may have heard of time in this form in Einstein’s special relativity. Special relativity, in a simplistic sense, states that time is the product of motion, and is contingent on the speed of an object. Our universal time is the relation of the earth’s motion around the sun. The measurement of motion is dependent on us, since we created our measuring system. Therefore, time is our subjective measurement of the relative motion between the earth and the sun. Certainly this is not natural time but pseudo-time, for “time” is dependent on us and is a feature of ourselves; but time qua time must be time as it is in itself, without the necessity of another object.
Time must be a state of motion. For the simple mention of time is a start of a phenomena, and every beginning is a force of motion. The only thing which has no true beginning is nothing; for if nothing begins, then it immediately becomes something. Therefore nothing is the closest one can get to a true state of rest. Let us look at the forward motion of time in accordance to numbers. When time is at rest, it must be at the motion of 0. But, 0 being one thing in itself is actually 1; it does the action of coming into being, and thus a motion is made which in itself represents 1. For 0 to exist as 0 qua 0 it must be in a constant state of destroying itself, going from one to zero, from something to nothing, without ever fully achieving its pure form(non-existence). Time in this form would be in a state of infinite destruction of itself, which can’t be the case.
We can look at time before time, but we must jump out of time itself to perceive what is outside of time, this we do using motion. But, if time is mere relation between the motion of two objects and their speed, then time must be an innate property of the relation between objects; not an innate property of the objects themselves. We manage to maintain a stable time by restricting time to a cycle, rather than allowing time to progress infinitely; which is what must be the true affair of time. For everything that is at rest is a constant state of being, while everything in motion is in a state of constant alteration. This being the case, time would continue from the point the phenomena itself began into infinity. And if we look for the beginning of time itself, rather than the beginning of our own time, we would find ourselves looking back to infinity, or find ourselves infinitely looking back; for to move back in time one must move themselves forward in their own time. We can move forward in our own time as far and as fast as our abilities allow, but must use our forward momentum in time to go back in time. If the person going back in time were immortal, he/she would go back to infinity. So even if time had a beginning, he/she would pass that beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment