∆ Timeless v.Time distinctions (Rhetoric and Semantics).

(see also >> ∆-2 The definition of 'Time' as being examined here. )

Understanding the definition and semantics.
As shown in the following table, the description of timelessness is in no way just a rewording of time. Each of the 17 X's in the timeless column indicates a clear distinction between the two concepts, each of which is specifically some 'feature' of time that I propose can be explained away completely...

The observations of Timelessness.

The theory of Time.

Things just move and change.

Things move and change - 'over Time'

Things can just interact.

Things interact - 'over Time'

Things just exist.

Things exist - 'over Time'.


Time exists.


Time passes.


Time has a one way flow, or ‘arrow’.


‘Intervals’ of time can exist between events.


There is a ‘temporal’, time-based order to events.


Causes create Effects in the ‘future’.


The ‘past’ exists, and can be ‘seen’ but not changed.


The ‘future’ exists. It cannot be seen, though it may be partially predicted and possibly altered by actions in the present.

The present exists just as we observe it.

The ‘Present’ exists,between the Past+Future.

 X'Special Relativity'
proves the existence of time.

 X'General Relativity'
proves the existence of time.


Time and space can be seen as aspects of one thing - ‘space-time’.


'Space-time' can be stretched and warped.


The universe can be seen as ‘Four dimensional’.


Travelling at speed slows the 'passage of Time'. (Special relativity)


One way time travel into the future actually occurs for fast moving objects.


Gravity i.e. warped space, slows the passage of Time. (General relativity) Also equal to one way travel into the future.


Time travel, or communication, into the past may be theoretically possible.

(Clicking the underlined links will open a related page in a new tab.)

Table 1- The difference between the time-less and time-based views.

Note: In this table (1) the empty boxes show precisely where the Timeless view is specifically different from the time based view. And thus where the differences are not just rhetorical or semantic. Each empty box therefore shows where each apparently Time based feature of the universe can be re-explained using only the observations that ‘things just exist, interact and change timelessly – now’.

Opposing explanations for every Time based assumption listed here are given in the various sections of 'A Brief History of Timelessness'.

Essentially, if you think that anything suggested in the 'time' column is legitimate, then we have a disagreement and I have to prove my version of events - or  to be more scientifc it should really be up to you to prove the 'extra' parts of nature you cannot observe but think exist =).

If you're not convinced the above reasoning is correct (which of course it may not be), there might be some psycological tricks and traps to watchout for within your own 'ingrained' assumptions, and habitual thought processes. See >> 02 Pit falls and Honey traps. for some pointers to these.

----------------------------(moved piece)

A working definition of time.
One of the biggest problems with proving that it makes complete sense if the universe is 'Timeless', is that many people who believe Time exists, don't really have a clear definition of precisely what they mean by the word 'Time'.

This means that most 'attacks' on the idea of Time, are met with a vague definition of time that is created and changed as each aspect of it is challenged. 

"Hey, but things change over time, we all known that".
Many people may, without giving it much personal thought instinctively repeat what they heard at school, and say " things change over time ",  or quote SPEED = DISTANCE / TIME", say of course 'Time' is just 'change', everyone knows that"
But in doing so people typically then fail to explain precisely what 'the past' and 'the future' are meant to be, if 'Time' is just 'change' , and everything is 'just changing' - i.e. always just changing 'now' (to use a redundant word).
Also where saying  'Time' is just 'change' we also go on to say, "but everything happens in time" (or time frame,or reference frame), So apparently Time is just change, but change happens in Time!?

Part of my aim in explaining how the world may be truly timeless and what that actually, scientifically, and sensibly means, is to bring the focus very heavily on such widely assumed, yet actually illogical, self referencing and thus 'unscientific' and effectively meaningless, bits of science.
Therefore, there is no point discussing Timelessness, verses Time, if we have no firm working definition of Time. Without a working definition everything is vague, and we are 'defining' what we are contesting, as we agree on each property to contest !!!  Confusing.

So here is a general 'working' definition of Time from wikipedia.

"Time is a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them"

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time   )

(We should note however that even this simple definition may be contested in the world of Einsteins Relativity for reason covered elsewhere in this site, and throughout the book )
The underlining in the working definition is my own, and you can find reference to each underlined concept in the table below. 

Semantics and Rhetoric
Also the conversation about time seems to have no substance if from the start in the back of your mind you hold the view that the author is really just discussing the same thing in different words. Making a few rhetorical or semantic errors, and misinterpreting a few temporal distinctions on the way. 

So it is critically important that we have working definition of what many people think the word 'Time' generally encompasses. Then the distinction between 'time' existing, and 'just timeless movement and change' existing, can at least be made clear.

With this in mind the table below shows how each term is defined for the purposes of this proof, and outlines that whatever mistakes I may have made, I have not simply misunderstood my subject, and I am not just "re-explaining ‘Time’ in different ways".

Instead I am suggesting a very distinctly different explanation of how the world around us works, in which many of the apparent components of 'Time' are shown to not be required in our understanding of the universe, and to not actually exist at all.


 To continue, see also  - The onus of proof.