S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 5 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 1 9 Michal Kutáš 5 The Concept of Time Let us look now at what is possibly another problematic offspring of our reason and senses. Let us consider the idea of time. Most scientifically sounding image of time is that of a dimension, as for example in physics. Both Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity present time as a dimension of a mathematical object (the Universe), which is at the same time – according to a given theory – physically real. But this object itself is not in time, nor outside of it. Time is one of its dimensions, alongside those of space. But it is not well imaginable how this object exists, if it is not in time. Whether we say it exists only for certain duration of time or whether we say it exists always, we are introducing a second time, so that a time itself remains not fully explained. This way thus does not seem satisfactory. But if we say that time is only a dimension of this object, we are not really able to imagine how this object itself exists. If we say it exists out of time, I am not sure whether we are able to really understand this. It seems to me that we always, although implicitly and tacitly, presuppose that what exists also exists in time, not outside of it. For how long does this object – the universe – exists? If neither always nor for certain amount of time than does it exist for no amount of time? But that would mean it does not exist at all. Maybe we can say that the duration for which a given space-time object exists is the longest line parallel with time dimension, which can be drawn through it, and that consequently also the whole universe as a greatest possible object exists for a duration which correspond to a longest line parallel with the time dimension, which exists in it. But, even then, I personally quite cannot comprehend how the overall universe-object exists, taken as a whole. And if we return to the thesis that this object exists out of time, the questions arise: What it even means to say that something exists out of time? Does the word “exist” functions properly with the phrase “out of time”? We are able to imagine this object as containing time as a dimension because we abstract from the idea of time (we see a static space-time object) and we ourselves stand (not being necessarily aware of it) outside of this object when imagining it. Thus, we look at it in our imagination and thinking for certain duration of time, as we would look on a vase. But this object, in itself, should stand outside of time in which we are, and we should be only part of it. But what about time as a dynamic concept? In this case, the questions arise regarding the nature of past, future and present. How past exists? If it does not exist, then how it is different from that which also does not exist in the present but also did not existed (in the past)? And if future also does not exist, how it is different from the past, if past also only does not exist? In our ordinary language, we seem to distinguish between what is possible but did not exist, what is possible and did exist, what is actual, what will exist, what can (but not necessarily will) exist in the future, and so on. So, it seems that what is past is not simply non-existent. And if it makes sense to speak about the past as distinct from what could have been but was not, then what is the difference between them? It looks like the “actual” past has some kind of being, but not the being of the kind present has. But, was not the word “existing” reserved for what is, and thus for what is actual and present? What is this new kind of being corresponding to what “is” in the past? And future, since it is different from both the past and present, should presumably get its own kind of being assigned. Suddenly, many kinds of being arise, alongside the being as being possible from our previous discussion. This is little strange and suspicious. Cannot these concepts be only our mental tools for coping with the world, and nothing more? They are very strange and when we look at them more closely, they do not seem to work very well – although they work (to a certain degree) in our practical life. But, when we try to make sense of them or analyze them, they seem rather like tools for handling the world as presented by our senses than like vessels of knowledge, mirroring the true nature of reality. In thinking more deeply about the past, future and present, we get baffled and confused – what are these, exactly? But this does not need to mean that past, future and present are mysterious – maybe they just do not exist as such in reality; maybe they are only our projections, which are to a great extent erroneous, but to some extent practical in the sense that they were able to help our genes to survive to this moment (which, in reality, may not be the moment – the present as we imagine it to be). What if the whole of our mental equipment connected with the idea of time is deeply flawed in the face of reality and catches only the minimal glimpse of it, needed for our survival? Thus, the mysterious present, as imagined by us, may be to a great extent only a result of our “imagination” too. What if there is no specific “moment”, a “point on a line”, an “intersection”, a “snapshot” or a geometrical object between past and future? What if so-called past has not ceased to exist, but penetrates to a so called present? And what if so-called future, imagined as not yet existent, also trickles down to our imagined “present point” or influences somehow the present moment? We imagine the present as a point on a line, or as a snapshot of a movie. But are such ideas accurate? It is quite possible that past, present and future are much more mys-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=