Is there really such a thing as the present?

Is there really such a thing as time? That is a question it is helpful to ask in order to address what we call the present. That is because our experience of time is completely subjective and because everything we are is dependent on that peculiar subjectivity.

Time is what we derive from the ceaseless transformation that is part of awareness, consciousness, thought, perception, action and reaction.

Time is our measure of the dynamic quality of existence that compliments the static quality of existence the latter of which allows the world and ourselves to be manifest.

The question is, does time actually exist or is it really a matter of perspective?

We know that the present is a matter of perspective.

It is a singular point in time in which our consciousness resides. It is the moment of realization that stands still while everything else changes, in a chain reaction that rigidly adheres to a causal order.

This continuum is linear, and when we try to imagine the motion of an apparently three-dimensional universe through time we trick ourselves into constructing a four-dimensional space-time continuum.

The problem with that is that by doing so, we have asserted that space and time are interchangeable, positing a relationship similar to that of matter and energy.

What is the problem exactly?

Well, examine first the continuum of matter and energy. Matter can be reduced entirely to energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed. The thing that distinguishes matter from energy is structure.

What distinguishes space from time without disassociating them completely? If it is dimension, then once again, structure steps in out of nowhere.

This is not necessarily a problem, if we consider that it is space and energy that constitute the true universal continuum. It provides for mutual resolution in that it answers the question of providing the universe with a capacity for structure and change.

Space is static and energy is dynamic, giving us the framework for a universe with matter and time.

Under this arrangement, time would be subjective and continuity would be a product of perspective. That is, time would be entirely relative.

It would emerge in direct association with process.

To be specific, the universe would not unfold a certain way because of the influence of time, but rather that time would unfold in a certain way because of the process of the universe.

This would be consistent with the way that time is created for us, through the processes of perception and interpretation.

For us, the experience of time is created through the mechanisms of our sensory and nervous organs transmitting nerve signals to our brains, which process them.

Somewhere in there, our minds get engaged and interpretation and experience occurs.

So, what does that make the present?

In some ways, that just makes it the focal point of this perceptual-interpretive process. Where we are in time becomes dependent upon where we are in the stream of information flowing through this structured, energized space we call the universe.

Does that sound crazy?

Does it sound rational?

Does it sound mysterious?

It might as well; life as we know it is all of these things. The only part of it we get a back-stage pass to is the part that goes on in our minds. That’s something to think about when we get around to wondering what, exactly, space is.

Originally posted on Helium.