The statement, “I don’t believe in time,” may initially appear profound, but it ultimately reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of language and its role as a technology/tool for communication and knowledge production. The verbal symbol time encompasses several interrelated phenomena, all of which are intrinsic to the structure of reality and independent of personal belief.
The Present Moment: The Primary Manifestation of Time
The present moment is one of the most immediate manifestations of time. It is the most direct pathway to experience time as well as produce knowledge upon it. Through the epistemological shortcut that is deductive reasoning, some have even hypothesized its eternal nature. Whether or not the present moment extends beyond the boundaries of the known universe—or multiverse—remains an open (and potentially unanswerable) question. However, it is clear that the present moment is inseparably integrated into the fabric of existence. It is not subject to belief, as it is a fundamental aspect of reality to which all living beings are bound.
Time as a Measurement of the Present Moment, Not Change
There is a common misconception that time is a measurement of change. This interpretation fails upon closer examination. Change occurs at different rates across various levels of reality—subatomic particles, molecules, cells, and tangible objects all move at different paces. For instance, subatomic particles may shift positions millions of times within a single “moment,” whereas their aggregates, such as molecules or physical objects, shift far less frequently.
If time were a measurement of change, it would require at the least an additional axis of measurement—something akin to a “depth axis”—to account for the variance in the rates of change across different levels of reality. Such a system would need to precisely measure how often tangible objects shift relative to their constituent components. Current time measurement systems do not—and cannot—answer these questions.
Another way to understand this would be to pose the question, "How much change is in one second?" Time as a system of measurement, in its current state, cannot answer that question. In order to answer this question a system which actually measures change would need to be articulated.
Instead, time as we understand and measure it is better described as a type of distance across the present moment. It provides a coherent framework for organizing experiences and events, but it is not a direct measurement of change. The intricacies of motion and transformation within the present moment are not captured by time as a conceptualization or a system of measurement.
I have previously articulated reality is best understood as being comprised of three distinct types of phenomena upon which we can produce knowledge. These are subjects, objects, and flow. Time is the flow. Objects change within the flow. The changing of these objects is distinct from the flow in which that change is occurring. When we measure the present moment, we are measuring the flow.
Time as a Measurable Phenomenon
Another layer of the concept of time is its measurability. Time refers to a type of distance—a measurement of the present moment itself. The systems we use to measure time, whether through clocks or calendars, are inherently arbitrary but functionally coherent. These systems enable us to impose structure upon the unbroken flow of existence, allowing for organization, prediction, and understanding.
Systems of Measurement: Arbitrary but Coherent
While the systems used to measure time are constructed by humans, their effectiveness lies in their alignment with underlying realities. Just as belief in kilometers or miles is irrelevant to their utility as measures of spatial distance, belief in a time-measuring system does not alter its coherence or applicability. A kilometer continues to serve its purpose regardless of individual belief; the same holds true for time as a system of measurement.
Event Time vs. Clock Time
The distinction between event time and clock time highlights cultural differences in interpreting time. Event time emphasizes the completion of activities, whereas clock time focuses on specific points of measurement. Both systems offer ways to organize activities across the present moment, reflecting the natural tendency of living beings to structure their existence. Importantly, the choice of one system over another is a matter of preference or cultural conditioning, not belief.
The Irrelevance of Belief
Belief has limited applicability to the concept of time. The present moment exists independently of belief, as do the systems we use to measure and interpret it. Statements such as “I don’t believe in time” fail to engage meaningfully with the realities that the verbal symbol time represents. Such declarations often reflect a superficial understanding of language, which is both a technology/tool for communication and a means of producing knowledge.
Language as a Technology of Understanding
Language is not merely a collection of arbitrary sounds or symbols; it is a sophisticated technology (albeit ancient) that enables humans to articulate and engage with reality. In short, this technology consists of a system of verbal symbols, grammars to organize the verbal symbols, and a cipher which connects the symbols to the underlying reality they intend to represent. For verbal symbols to serve their purpose, they must reference truthful underlying phenomena. The statement “I don’t believe in time” does not adequately do so, rendering it more akin to a complex bark of an animal than a meaningful contribution to human dialogue.
Encouraging Reflection and Clarity
To those who assert disbelief in time, one might respond: “It seems you misunderstand the nature of language and its connection to reality.” Instead of making declarations that fail to engage with reality, such individuals might benefit from quieting their minds, resting their subjectivities upon the flow of time, and contemplating the nature of language as an advanced technology for understanding.
The complexity of human cognition allows us to recognize and measure the distances inherent in the present moment, to engage with them linguistically, and to produce knowledge from these engagements. To disregard this capacity is to forgo one of humanity’s most profound abilities.
Conclusion
At its core, the statement “I don’t believe in time” reflects a lack of understanding about what time and language truly represent. Time, as a phenomenon, transcends belief. It is a fundamental force of reality, a measurable distance, and a system of organization. Language, when properly employed, allows us to understand and articulate these truths. Dismissing these truths, is not an act of profundity but of confusion.
As time transcends belief, it has the potential to serve as a conceptual antidote for conflicts that arise from differing beliefs systems (i.e religious beliefs). Put simply, instead of engaging in various degrees of conflict with others over one's personal version of god, one can simply learn to rest one's mind on the flow of time, as both a means to cultivate a genuine lasting happiness, and to produce knowledge.
Thus, the challenge is not to debate the existence of time but to engage thoughtfully with its many dimensions—and to recognize the responsibility we have in validating the diverse ways others organize their lives within the time they are given. Perhaps it is most prudent to advance the technology of language by assigning distinct verbal/written symbols to the various phenomena currently represented by the single symbol time.
Thank you and have a content day
Comments