I want to preface what I say by first pointing
out [a little long-windedly I'm afraid] that
it takes a Herculean effort to free oneself
from the bonds of the notion of *time.* It
is certainly not easy. The abstraction is
dropforged into us from the time we are born.
As we grow older we become aware that we
are surrounded by clocks, and the grown-ups
talk incessantly of "No *time* for this,*
or "Plenty of *time* for that,"
and events are indicated or referred to as
having taken place in the *past,* or happening
*now* in the *present,* or assert that some
event will happen in the *future,* and the
folk around us speak as if the present *now*
was in some way *different* from the permanent
*now* of the continuum.
In fact all world languages contain words
and terms which reinforce the concept of
*time* in complex, insidious and ultimately
penetrating ways which almost always end
with the internalisation of *time* by all
that are exposed to the notion. In the end
it becomes part of the way in which we interface
with the world, and provides a cognitive
tool which enables us to structure our very
lives.
For the child school-time begins when the
fast-moving hands of the clock point to 9,
and when the torturously slow little hand
reaches 4 we are free again. Trains and busses,
holidays and birthdays, reunions and anniversaries,
life and death all come and go in relation
to the slow changing of the seasons, which
are divided into weekly and monthly intervals,
and the sometimes fast-paced and sometimes
laggardly strange abstraction which we call
*TIME* seems so real that we take it for
granted as something which must have *existed*
millennia before life first crawled upon
the earth, a long *time* before mankind discovered
*time* and named it and divided it into manageable
chunks in order to measure, record and predict
and divide his brief say upon the earth into
apprehensible temporal separations.
Some might say that the concept of *Time*
is a triumph of brainwashing which rivals
and even surpasses the fiction of *God* or
*Being* for it is truly *universal* in its
employment by human kind. The big difference
is that whilst *Time* is undoubtably a useful
even essential fiction, the other two are
useless encumbrances and hindrances to human
understanding.
The American philosopher Richard Sansom says
that it is not a form of brainwashing but
rather:
*The result of accepting norms that have
proven to be indespensible in human activity
and discourse*
Nor does he compare it to a belief in God
or Being, Sansom goes on...
*Since those are not required ingredients
of our daily functions - while dealing with
Time is a ubiquitous requirement. Humans
have always had a handy metric with which
to deal with the motions and activities of
their day - the [apparent] movement of the
sun and moon, the tides, even their bodily
functions. Distance was often measured in
terms of time and not miles or some equivalent
metric. As for calling it a 'fiction' along
with those other abstractions, I cannot comply
here. It is not a fiction, but rather it
is an acquired instantiation of a physical
reality - the realitof motion.*
I agree with the first part of what he says
but not the second, for an internalisation
of the notion of *time* is not something
which is forced upon us in the manner of
religion, nor is there a priesthood of incense-swinging
Temporalists with rich robes and rituals
and clocks instead of crosses. Where I do
have to disagree with the American thinker
is regarding his belief that time is not
a fiction. I believe that it is indeed a
useful fiction conceived by human beings,
and is not an instantiation or mental representation
of *reality,* for the abstraction *reality*
does not exist either - plainly only things
which are real [entities] actually exist
It is characteristic of any believer whether
philosophical, religious or scientific, who,
when faced with someone that disagrees with
his belief or position, to immediately counter
the denial by saying that the disbeliever's
rejection of his position is - because of
lack of rigour in his thinking, or a lack
of proper study of the subject, or has demonstrated
an inability to try to gain access into the
inner profundity of his system and the *minds*
of it founders or gurus.
If however the sceptical rejectionist replies
that on the contrary, he has been most rigorous
in his appraisal, has studied the subject
in greater detail than the believer himself,
and indeed, he or she has gone to great lengths
over a long period to penetrate the intricacies,
ramifications, contradictions of the claims
inherent in the *minds* of the followers
of the belief, and is well aware of its negative
aspects as well as its few positive and meaningful
aspects. It is at this juncture that the
believer usually falls back to his last redoubt.
*The reason you reject it,* he snarls through
clenched teeth, *Is because you are stupid!*
I said all that above because although I
am confident that I understand that *time*
is no more than a totally human created useful
fiction, and I comprehend [though it is a
struggle to describe it] the atemporality
of the cosmos, I do not expect everybody
else to understand it, or even be interested
in it, and if they try to understand it and
fail to do so it is NOT because they are
stupid, but sometimes because they are extra
intelligent, and they bring to bear that
extra intelligence on the denial of *Time*
with a plethora of well-thought- out good
reasons to oppose such an abnegation of temporality
which just happen to be wrong.
Having spent most of this message on the
preamble - I will *now* address the question
which is:
*How you figure a 'change' without the time
concept?*
There is no need for the charming Feynman's
[I loved that man] convoluted QM treatise
to disabuse one from the notion of *time*
- it has to be cleared or exorcised from
the brain, and the only way that that can
be done is for the body-brain or wholism
to be changed, so that it exists in a different
way, manner or mode, from the way it existed
whilst it still *believed* in *Time.*
So how can this change take place if there
is no *time* within which to change? The
answer to this apparent conundrum I will
leave right to the end of this piece, but
first I want to make the point that ever-changing
entities do not *need* a temporal-framework
within which to alter, and the notion of
such an alterational necessity is merely
another facet of the difficulty of the brainwashed
human *mind* to grasp the abstraction. It
is only because we humans associate change
with *time* that we find it difficult to
think of change without thinking of *time,*
as being something constantly and inexorably
*attached* or *associated* and *dependant*
upon *time.*
But what of existential change when compared
with more alterational change, as when a
thing comes into existence, or passes out
of existence? Are such changes real changes
in the things that pass in and out of existence?.
And here comes your answer John - there is
no difference at all between existential
*change* and alterational change, because
*CHANGE* DOESN'T EXIST EITHER - *change*
is just the flip-side of the useful fiction
- it is not *change* that exists - BUT THAT
WHICH CHANGES. Like everybody else I have
changed in appearance somewhat drastically
from the days of my youth - but it is the
changing Jud that exists and whose body and
face registers the changing modalities of
his flesh and bones as the cells degenerate
due to endless renewal and copying. *Change*
therefore is not a *product* of *Time* and
*Time* is not necessary for *Change* because
neither of these abstractions exist, never
have done and never will do.
