On the Nature of Time. A Philosophical Exploration.

“Time: Memory”. Coloured pencil on paper. 21 × 30 cm. 2021.

We usually observe time through causality. Things unfold in certain orded and this unfoldment is one-directional, from the past towards the future. We cannot change the things that have already occured and we cannot stop the consequences of those occurences.

The belief in the irreversibility of this ”arrow of time” is based on the fact that we never witness causality go backwards. A philosophy book I read on this matter gave the following example. Let's suppose someone pushes a drinking glass full of milk off the table. The glass falls down, liquid starts to spill and when the glass meets the floor it breaks into shards, spreading all of the milk on the floor. This example supposedly demonstrated the irreversibility of time by pointing out that we never witness the aforementioned process to go backwards. It never happens that the glass returns from the shards to a seamless whole, liquid returns inside the glass and the glass flies back on the table.

However, I was not and still am not convinced that this example proved what it attempted to prove. To me, it showed that causality, in forward-moving time, cannot be reversed. While causality and time are deeply interlinked, are they one and the same thing? For what would happen if we were to actually observe the broken glass assemble itself back on the table? We, the observers, would be moving forward in time and the causal effects would also be undoing themsleves in forward-moving time. We would just be witnessing some extremely unusual chain of events — not a reversal of time.

If we were to actually move backwards in time, we would think that the glass didn't ever fall from the table. And that would be because, in a certain sense, the glass never fell. Only in such case would we be witnessing the undoing of both the causal chain and the unfoldement of time. Of course we couldn't witness such a thing, because we are bound by the boundaries of linear time. The reversing of time would have to happen in the dimension of time; but since we exist in one-dimensional time, even if time-reversals would happen we couldn't observe it. In other words, the arrow of time might not be irreversible – and the same would then hold true for causal chains – but we wouldn't be able to verify it from our experience.

Let us now suppose that there are other dimensions to time than just the one we are occupying — and maybe from those dimensions we could observe the reversal of time. Perhaps from that perspective we could see the backward-going motion of the milk glass; as well as of our neurobiological apparatus that was relaying to us the information about the glass.

Of course, this supposition would require two dramatic alterations into what we usually think time to be like (theoretical physicists and some others weirdos excluded). First of all, there would be a postulation that there are other dimension(s) to time than just the one we are expriencing. Second, time would be akin to spatial dimension in that from a “higher” dimension of time, we could observe things to move in time; this would be similar to how we can see things move in spatial space.

To illustrate this, imagine a car that first goes forward and then backs up to the same place from where it started said forward movement. When this happens in the linear dimension of time, instead of just the spatial dimension, the perspective the car has is that it never moved forwards. From the higher dimension we would be able to observe the said movement; from the perspective of the lower time-dimension there was no movement in the first place. This inability to see the reversing of time would be shared by any observer occupying only the same dimension of time as the car does; and only those observing things from some higher dimension of time would be able to see the time-reversal.

Going along with the spatial metaphor, the “place” in time where our imaginary car returns might not actually be exactly the same spot from where it left. In fact, it might have moved slightly sideways. So while time-reversals could ”undo” time from the linear perspective, moving in different directions in time could change the whole course of what we percieve to be a linear time. What this would actually mean is hard to imagine from within the limits of the linear time. For what would it implicate of the reality that we are in if we were to move sideways in time?

One way to approach this question is to argue that the nature of time is to branch. These branches are essentially the alternative universes or alternative timelines utilized in fiction. Returning to our imaginary car, it could be argued that in one branch of time the car moved while on another it did not. The different branches would exist simultaneously, but those occupying a certain branch of (linear) time wouldn't know about the existence of other branches. The simultaneous existence of different branches would only be observable from a higher dimension of time. So moving sideways in time would in this case mean that one is travelling from one branch of time to another – between the different alternative universes.

Also, if the time would be similar to spatial space then it might be possible to move in different speeds through the dimension(s) of time. Speed, in the usual sense of the word, describes a certain relationship between time and space; that is, how long a distance some moving object covers in some given time. A fella called Einstein had some pretty unusual ideas about this relationship and those are expressed in his theory of relativity. However, I am but an armchair philosopher and thus shall leave that headache to those who are armed with a smarter head than I am. Besides, my undestranding is that the theory of relativity only deals with differences in speeds in time within the linear time. But what would “speed” mean when moving through different dimensions of time?

Now that the questions are getting way too difficult for me to deal with, it is time to retract our steps a bit. With all this talk about the possible qualities of times, terms such as ”observing” and ”knowing” were used repeatedly. I was thus not talking only about time, space and causality; but also about perceptions and interpretations about them. We are now approaching the questions about consciousness that is experiencing time. Indeed, what is the relationship between time and consciousness?

To consider this relationship, let's return from the complex multi-dimensionality of time to the humble now. On the level of our actual experience we percieve the time to be a linear “arrow of time” which flies from the past towards the future. And we are always at the sharp tip of tha t arrow — on the ”now” that is leading the travel through that (supposedly) linear path. But if we wish to be precise, we must admit we can only experience that tip. We can never experience the past or the future, since from the point of view of our actual experience the past is but memories and the future but anticipations. The linearity of time is this a constructs of our consciousness and differs from our dreams and fantasies only by the weight of reality that we ascribe to it.

Of course, it can be argued that anything we experience is a construct of our consciousness since everything we experience has, by necessity, passed through our perceptual faculties. If we come to experience something, then building blocks for that experience must have passed through some sort of faculty of perception — otherwise we wouldn’t be having that experience. But for the sake of not straying from the subject at hand, let’s leave that aside and instead concentrate on what we perceive to be independent of us — the Reality.

The Reality is that which exists independently of our minds. It is the material existence; the state of being where causal chains appear to be unfolding in time whether or not they are being consciously observed. With the possible exception of quantum-level phenomenon, we don't seem to be able to change material causal chains through the actions of our consiousness alone. For example, once the milk glass is in mid-air I cannot simply decide that it won't shatter and will it to be so. The only way I can influence this causal chain is through a material interference — to try and catch the glass before it hits the floor. The success of such attempt, however, is anything but guaranteed. So a rebuttal for previous considerations could be as follows: if the past and the future and thus the “arrow of time” is but the construct of our consciousness, why do we have so little control over how it unfolds?

Well wait a minute — through instigating the action of trying to catch the glass before it hits the floor my consciousness did influence the unfolding of material causal chains in time! My (un)consciousness moved my material hand in the material dimension and thus influenced the realm of time and causality. So perhaps it is not the uncontrollability of the Reality that makes it more weighty in its reality from other constructs of our consciousness, but our ability to influence the unfoldment of material causal chains based on our previous observations of causal chains in material reality. We know that a material milk glass differs from an imagined milk glass in many ways; and one of the ways these two differ is that the latter cannot be grasped with our material hand, lifted to our material lips and the contents drank down into our material stomach. Similarly, we can imagine a broken glass reassemblig itself and flying back to the table it fell from, but we know from our previous experiences with the Reality that a material glass wouldn’t do that.

But do we actually have control over the constructs of our consciousness, either? The answer is — very poorly. As anyone who has made any sincere attempts into meditation knows, controlling the mind is a very tricky task. Sure, the meditator can concentrate her mind on something and nudge her thought process into certain directions; but soon she notices how her mind has started, without her permission, to wander where-ever it is that the mind pleases to go. Same holds even more true for our dreams. Most of just go where-ever it is that the dream wants to take us and, to my knowledge, even those of us who are able to dream lucidly can only partially influence what will happen in a lucid dream.While this line of thought would open the doors for further interesting philosophical reflections — how do we differentiate between different layers of consciousness? — following those thoughts would be akin to a meditator who drifts away from her objecs of concentration. So let’s return to an object of our meditation: to the now.

Perhaps the most typical way to think about time is to think that the moment “now” moves forward on the path of linear time. Every moment of ”now” was once yet to happen; soon, the ”now” of this moment will be something that already happened. But reflecting on this makes the now itself — the only part of time we actually experience — seem a bit strange. For how does one moment of ”now” change into the next one? How would we evalueate the lenght of one ”now”? And why is the now so special to us? Why is it the very nexus of experience and action?

And what is the relationships between now and the possible other dimensions of time? Is now perhaps a dimensioneless point through which time flows? If so, is now not actually a phenomenon of time? What is the relationship between now and consciousness — are they possibly even one and the same thing? And if “now” and “consciousness” can be equated, then we can ask: what is the relationship between time and unconsciousness? For some aspects of the unconscious mind — into which we can sometimes get glimpses into when we enter into altered states of consciousness — seem to be able to transcend time… but now the mind of the meditator is starting to escape somewhere far away again, so before things get completely out of hand it is time to return to the object of meditation.

Indeed, one of the difficulties we face when we try to comprehend the possible multi-dimensionality of time is the fact that we are tied to the now – to the point of reference from which we observe the unfolding of time. For to even conduct an analysis we need a steady point of reference, a still-enough state of consciousness. Once that is established, we can start to pay close attention to the details of the situation and thus the underlying patterns can begin to reveal themselves to our intellect. But if our point of reference moves in ways we have never experienced before, then the scenery we are trying to observe becomes very confusing: all the forms and colours blur together, we don't know which way is up and which down, and we might start to feel kind of motion sick from the shakiness of it all. Simply getting used to this new kind of movement would require learning; and after that we'd need to find the metaphors that would make our observations understandable to even ourseves, let alone to those who hadn’t had such experiences as we have.

But in fact — we do experience time to move in different speeds. And it is actually a very common experience. Under different kindd of emotional states the time feels to be moving in different speeds. To illustrate this, let's suppose someone has been seriously injured in a car accident and has been rushed to hospital to undergo an emergency surgery. The injured person is unconscious and presumably has no experience of time. On the other hand, for the doctors and nurses fighting so as to save the injured's life propably feel like the time is moving very fast. For the injured’s loved one, who is waiting outside of the operation room, time is moving painstakingly slowly. But to someone who just happens to walk past the operation room the time would be moving along on its “normal” speed. And the duration of things in objective time would be counted by the clock on the hallway’s wall.

This example shows also that while for the subjective experiences of time differ, the objective time is same for everyone (at least if we are all moving at similar speed in spatial dimensions). So in this way, time is both the construct of our mind and a phenomenon independent of us. We can thus make the following statement. Differences in the experience of time is due to the fact that our consciousness constructs time; while the objective time, which flows independently from our subjective experience, gives rise to the subjective time. However, this does not inform us on how we would experience the movement in multi-dimensional time as we could be moving both subjectively and objectively at varying speeds.

One might also point out that the statement above is kind of circural. But then again, that is perhaps problem only if we view time as linear. In many cultural traditions, time is understood to be cyclical instead of linear. And if the time itself would be circural or spiralling, then perhaps the relationship between our consciousness and time would also be of a same form.

Indeed, we have not considered the possibility of cyclicity of time at all in this essay — and I will not consider it any further, because things are already way too complicated. I mean, think about multi-dimensional, bracnhing and spiralling time; which can be moved in, between and thourgh different directions, and the speed of movement can vary both objectively and subjectively; which is both constructed by us and independent of us; which is obserbved as linear when experienced through a dimensioneless point of non-time but perhaps accessible in a more complexity through untypical states of consciousness… I can say that I, for one, am starting to feel kind of motion sick by the simple thought of it all.

Alas, I think it is about to time to drive our philosophical time-traveling car back to a parking lot before the feeling in my stomach gets too uncomfortable. In other words, it is about time I conclude this essay. And I must admit that while I did explore some (possible) aspects of time, I did not come to know much better what time actually is. For what does ”dimension of time” mean? What is ”consciousness”?

Perhaps I'll have to conclude this essay by shrugging my shoulders and claiming that time is axiomatic — something that we cannot define any further but simply need to take as granted. Nevertheless, through the exploration of the qualities of time we may deepen our understanding of what time is like. And if nothing else, time remains an enigmatic problem for the mind to ponder upon… But hey, didn’t I leave my car just a moment ago here? So how can it be over there now… and… did it start to slide downhill?!? Quick, someone stop the clock — I am pretty sure this won’t be covered by my insurance! … Oh, the car was here all along — I guess I just remembered wrong the lot I parked it in. Although… for some strange reason… I have a feeling that my car used to be black and not white… But my keyes do fit, so I guess I am just remembering some dream I’ve had. Yes, a dream where my car crashed and I was rushed into a hospital for emergency operation so that I could be move back to the correct timeline… The milk I drank at the hospital was pretty tasty, I must say, even though it was all just in my imagination.