2 Timeless Postulates

because, In writing 'A Brief History of Timelessness' I produced a very tight and simple chain of reasoning, based on two extremely simple postulates, which (i believe) if followed in an unbiased (especially non-sophist) way shows very logically how the theory of time is completely unfounded, unproven, and unnecessary to explain the world we observe.

the two postulates being...

1-Matter(/energy) seems to exist.
2-This matter(/energy) seems to be able to move, change and interact.

I think these postulates are as reasonable and acceptable here as they are implied and used throughout Relativity.

eg: Even they very title of Einsteins "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES"
implies it is accepted that 'bodies' exist, and they can 'move'.

Relativity's own postulates

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion. OR: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

These, clearly reference, 'bodies', 'motion' and 'change', speed, inertia, and 'the laws of physics' - 'the laws of physics' being...
the branch of science concerned with the nature and properties of matter and energy.


it most definitely refers to the pointing of a 'hand' on a dial, and the position of a 'train' on a track. both clearly 'objects' or matter, said to exist, and be able to move and interact with other matter.

So, I suggest my 2 postulates

1-Matter(/energy) seems to exist.
2-This matter(/energy) seems to be able to move, change and interact.

are very reasonably acceptable, and thus good enough reason for anyone interested to read and understand the conclusions i draw from them - and thus decide whether the argument i present makes sense or not.

Thus, anyone willing to even imagine that these two incredibly basic and simple possibilities or observations may be correct, can, if they wish, and try, follow my reasoning and see how it explains that, while many people are happy to jump to the conclusion that for things to be able to exist, and in particular move, a thing called 'time' must exist, a careful systematic examination of the facts may show that this 'time' thing is not actually observed, proven, provable, or falsifiable, or needed.

And therefore that it may in fact that the universe is actually timeless, though giving us the misunderstanding there may be a 'past' and 'time'.

Instead, it may just be the case that objects just exist, and move through (warped) space. ( though not warped space'time').