As time is routinely "attacked" on this forum, I had thought to pen both a justification of her existence and elaborate on her role as one of the fundamentals of existence (alongside her sisters Space and Relation).

Part I: Time is Needed to Explain Motion and Is Itself the Dimension Which Allows Such

Space can be explained as a tri-axial Cartesian grid. Any object on this grid would be represented as a point with a position on the X, Y, and Z axes. Of course, this means that space is, in an ultimate state, static. Zeno proved this quite well 2,500 years ago in the Paradox of the Arrow, which shows that if one were to freeze an arrow at any time in its flight, it would be representable as a point on the aforementioned Cartesian grid. That is to say, any notion of motion, or time, would not be found. To Zeno this was enough to convince him that time did not exist, nor did motion.

Despite Zeno's protestations, we must conclude that it is quite obvious that motion -does- exist, and subsequently, so does time. We witness it every moment of our lives. Indeed, this would not be written were it not for motion, both of the mental variety (the progression of thought) and the actual movement of the fingers dancing on the keyboard to produce the (hopefully!) intelligible combination of letters and words that is here presented.

How then can it be said that time exists, if Zeno showed that it was quite absurd to think so, if one were to look at the arrow itself at any point?

An analogy can be made to a strip of movie film. At any point in a movie, what is being shown on screen is a static image. It is the speed at which the images are shown which gives the illusion of a movement. That is to say, what one sees as one second of continuous motion, is actually 24 discontinuous frames. Time, then, can be thought of as the movie projector pulling the film along at its proper speed. What would be otherwise 24 discontinuous frames becomes instead one coherent second of action on screen because of the projector, just as time unites a series of static moments. Yet it ought to be noted that it is not a mere illusion, like the projector, that time facilitates, but rather an actual movement owing to its unification with space and relation, and which shall be touched upon momentarily.

But because such motion is alien to space as a three dimensional grid, be it of arrow's flight or the projector's spinning wheels, it is necessary to consider time as something very specific, namely a sort of dimension itself, a fourth dimension (a concept which most will be previously familiar with), which serves to connect two disparate three dimensional (and static) images of reality. Yet this must not be held to say that time is ultimately distinct from space. Rather, it is proper to say that time and space are welded together because of this and it is in fact in this notion of relation that we can understand time further.

Part II: Time's Origin is in Relation

Although, as shall be proven in part three, time is held to be eternal, one must nevertheless discuss why it exists, by which the term "origin" should be understood, rather than a "beginning".

If one evaluates what it entails for existence to exist, one will find (as argued elsewhere by myself - See "Argument for the Existence of God" [note: non-Theistic] and "Godless Metaphysics", amongst other places) that existence necessarily demands infinity. Yet so long as it is held that it exists greater than an indivisible monad of infinite smallness, we must conclude that such space would require parts. In an infinite existence - which it is affirmed to accurately reflect reality - we must conclude, in fact, that there is an infinite amount of parts, of all sizes, which compose the greater whole. Accordingly, one cannot speak of an "indivisible infinity" and must admit of infinity as a greater whole, ergo infinity is properly relational. Now if such is the case, then we must admit that even in a timeless universe relation exists. But if relation itself exists, we must also speak of how if we allow its possibility for one arrangement, we must allow its possibility for all arrangements which are not impossible (square-circles and the like). So that even in a permanently static existence, we actually have what can be considered the "seed of movement" and it is this which demands that not one moment, but an infinite series of moments (an infinite amount of things requires an infinite amount of time to infinitely recombine an infinite amount of times) exist owing to these relations, and indeed, even the relation spoken in part I of one point in time with another. Of course, this also demonstrates an eternity of time, but this is appropriate, as our next topic shall be just that.

Part III: Time is Eternal and this is not a Problem

There are three ways this existence could have come to be:

1. Necessity demands existence exists, and thus it is eternal.

2. God created existence, but as God himself would be necessitated would be eternal and thus we would be met with the same scenario as above.

3. Existence sprang out of nothing.

It is here charged that the third possibility is impossible, on account that it is absurd to say that nothing can produce anything. For in order to be nothing, generative powers must be lacking. That is to say, one cannot speak of a "fruitful nothingness", as fruit can only be found on trees. Accordingly, we are left only with the same essential argument as expressed in 1 and 2 - all of which point to an eternity of time.

But as Immanuel Kant (that wily Konigsbergian!) pointed out, an infinity of time existing before the present moment makes it impossible this moment to be ever reached. Hence, eternity would seem to be impossible, and as nothingness cannot produce something (which would allow finite time) we are in quite a pickle!

There has been found, however, a solution:

Time must be considered as composed of three separate relations, not one continuum. These three are: A moment's connection to the infinite past, a moment's connection to the infinite future, and a moment's connection to finite past or future moments.

The graph above represents these three relations in three instances.

To reconcile our relations with eternity, we must first note that it is fallacious to conceive of any two random moments in time as unequally distant to the infinite future and infinite past. By definition, any finite point is an infinitely distant from the "end" of infinity and the same holds true for time. To put it mathematically, 23 and 21342430284320482304823042739472587495327947329847329847234872394732894723894626429374238423742397492347329273400234230942349204206925259234979023 are both an infinite distance away from infinity. Accordingly, the only time we can speak of non-infinite distance is between two finite points of time.

Let us consider this: Because all points of time are equal to an infinity of time in the future and past, but are obviously variously distant from finite points in time, it must be that these are two differing measurements taking place. In one instance, one would be comparing two points in time by their distance from two other points and when finding them alike, declaring them so. On the other hand, when one is seeking to find the time between the 22nd of May, 1862 at 5:00 am, and the 30th of July, 1945 at 7:00 pm, one is comparing two relative points of time to one another. We may thus classify the first as "absolute time", or time as judged by its absolute and static value as infinitely distant from beginning and end, whereas in the latter case we can classify it as "relative time".

In regards to absolute time, one thing further may be said. If one were to compare the two ideal "end points" of an infinity of time, I.E. the infinite past and infinite future, we are allowed by Kant to rightfully consider an infinite passage of time to have taken place, precisely because we are dealing with an actual infinity of time as taken by a whole. Yet what may not be so apparent, yet is so vital to point out, is that this infinite answer is precisely the same thing answer we take when we measure any point in time and measure it to either extreme. Subsequently, we are forced to admit that a measurement from any point in time to an extreme is equal to a measurement from one extreme to the other in absolute time, and therefore, they are identical.

Yet if the above was not clear: We have an instance where, contra-Kant's critique, we have an infinity of time that had an infinity of time take place rightfully with no problem. Moreover, we have found this to be equivalent to any finite time taken in relation to either infinity of time. The conclusion, then, is obvious: In absolute time, it is perfectly rational to conclude an infinity of time has passed to reach this point. Just as it did for the point before, after, and before and after that, and all other points in time and space. In fact, because all points in time are absolutely equivalent, all time holds an absolute distance from both extremes of the infinities of time, and this meshes up exactly with what the concept of eternity demands and entails when, quite literally, it has neither beginning nor end. Contra-Kant, time cannot be conceived as anything but including such concepts of infinite distance from past and future.

Yet there must be a final point made of another factor that drives home the eternal status of time as rational, and this goes back to relation. As noted in part II, it is affirmed that there are an infinite amount of parts to all infinities and in space - within which time manifests, works, and is wedded to - this demands infinite time. If this is so, then it makes perfect sense that every moment is preceded by an infinite series of moments, regardless of where judged, because there is an infinite variety of parts and combinations. Also, relative time comparisons are similarly infinite, because every point in time can be relatively evaluated compared to any other point in time and as the time is infinite, each can infinitely be so compared.

Part IV: In Conclusion

With the above proofs presented, it is put forth that time is not only rational, eternal, and a fundamental of existence, but that it is also a necessary contradiction to affirm the idea that such is not true, so long as one can speak of even imaginary motion or any other behaviour that demands time. That is to say, by asserting the idea that there can be motion and yet denying time, one is saying "there can be motion without the ability to move". When one finds out that time is not something utterly remote from everything else, but united with the other fundamentals, the impetus behind "time doesn't exist" arguments - that time is manifested in motion and other such phenomena - disappears, as it not true that time is supposed to be considered detached and remote from its effects. Do we refute roads by pointing to the fact that it is the car that is moving? Certainly not and thus does it behoove us not to refute time for something ever so similar.

Part I: Time is Needed to Explain Motion and Is Itself the Dimension Which Allows Such

Space can be explained as a tri-axial Cartesian grid. Any object on this grid would be represented as a point with a position on the X, Y, and Z axes. Of course, this means that space is, in an ultimate state, static. Zeno proved this quite well 2,500 years ago in the Paradox of the Arrow, which shows that if one were to freeze an arrow at any time in its flight, it would be representable as a point on the aforementioned Cartesian grid. That is to say, any notion of motion, or time, would not be found. To Zeno this was enough to convince him that time did not exist, nor did motion.

Despite Zeno's protestations, we must conclude that it is quite obvious that motion -does- exist, and subsequently, so does time. We witness it every moment of our lives. Indeed, this would not be written were it not for motion, both of the mental variety (the progression of thought) and the actual movement of the fingers dancing on the keyboard to produce the (hopefully!) intelligible combination of letters and words that is here presented.

How then can it be said that time exists, if Zeno showed that it was quite absurd to think so, if one were to look at the arrow itself at any point?

An analogy can be made to a strip of movie film. At any point in a movie, what is being shown on screen is a static image. It is the speed at which the images are shown which gives the illusion of a movement. That is to say, what one sees as one second of continuous motion, is actually 24 discontinuous frames. Time, then, can be thought of as the movie projector pulling the film along at its proper speed. What would be otherwise 24 discontinuous frames becomes instead one coherent second of action on screen because of the projector, just as time unites a series of static moments. Yet it ought to be noted that it is not a mere illusion, like the projector, that time facilitates, but rather an actual movement owing to its unification with space and relation, and which shall be touched upon momentarily.

But because such motion is alien to space as a three dimensional grid, be it of arrow's flight or the projector's spinning wheels, it is necessary to consider time as something very specific, namely a sort of dimension itself, a fourth dimension (a concept which most will be previously familiar with), which serves to connect two disparate three dimensional (and static) images of reality. Yet this must not be held to say that time is ultimately distinct from space. Rather, it is proper to say that time and space are welded together because of this and it is in fact in this notion of relation that we can understand time further.

Part II: Time's Origin is in Relation

Although, as shall be proven in part three, time is held to be eternal, one must nevertheless discuss why it exists, by which the term "origin" should be understood, rather than a "beginning".

If one evaluates what it entails for existence to exist, one will find (as argued elsewhere by myself - See "Argument for the Existence of God" [note: non-Theistic] and "Godless Metaphysics", amongst other places) that existence necessarily demands infinity. Yet so long as it is held that it exists greater than an indivisible monad of infinite smallness, we must conclude that such space would require parts. In an infinite existence - which it is affirmed to accurately reflect reality - we must conclude, in fact, that there is an infinite amount of parts, of all sizes, which compose the greater whole. Accordingly, one cannot speak of an "indivisible infinity" and must admit of infinity as a greater whole, ergo infinity is properly relational. Now if such is the case, then we must admit that even in a timeless universe relation exists. But if relation itself exists, we must also speak of how if we allow its possibility for one arrangement, we must allow its possibility for all arrangements which are not impossible (square-circles and the like). So that even in a permanently static existence, we actually have what can be considered the "seed of movement" and it is this which demands that not one moment, but an infinite series of moments (an infinite amount of things requires an infinite amount of time to infinitely recombine an infinite amount of times) exist owing to these relations, and indeed, even the relation spoken in part I of one point in time with another. Of course, this also demonstrates an eternity of time, but this is appropriate, as our next topic shall be just that.

Part III: Time is Eternal and this is not a Problem

There are three ways this existence could have come to be:

1. Necessity demands existence exists, and thus it is eternal.

2. God created existence, but as God himself would be necessitated would be eternal and thus we would be met with the same scenario as above.

3. Existence sprang out of nothing.

It is here charged that the third possibility is impossible, on account that it is absurd to say that nothing can produce anything. For in order to be nothing, generative powers must be lacking. That is to say, one cannot speak of a "fruitful nothingness", as fruit can only be found on trees. Accordingly, we are left only with the same essential argument as expressed in 1 and 2 - all of which point to an eternity of time.

But as Immanuel Kant (that wily Konigsbergian!) pointed out, an infinity of time existing before the present moment makes it impossible this moment to be ever reached. Hence, eternity would seem to be impossible, and as nothingness cannot produce something (which would allow finite time) we are in quite a pickle!

There has been found, however, a solution:

Time must be considered as composed of three separate relations, not one continuum. These three are: A moment's connection to the infinite past, a moment's connection to the infinite future, and a moment's connection to finite past or future moments.

The graph above represents these three relations in three instances.

To reconcile our relations with eternity, we must first note that it is fallacious to conceive of any two random moments in time as unequally distant to the infinite future and infinite past. By definition, any finite point is an infinitely distant from the "end" of infinity and the same holds true for time. To put it mathematically, 23 and 21342430284320482304823042739472587495327947329847329847234872394732894723894626429374238423742397492347329273400234230942349204206925259234979023 are both an infinite distance away from infinity. Accordingly, the only time we can speak of non-infinite distance is between two finite points of time.

Let us consider this: Because all points of time are equal to an infinity of time in the future and past, but are obviously variously distant from finite points in time, it must be that these are two differing measurements taking place. In one instance, one would be comparing two points in time by their distance from two other points and when finding them alike, declaring them so. On the other hand, when one is seeking to find the time between the 22nd of May, 1862 at 5:00 am, and the 30th of July, 1945 at 7:00 pm, one is comparing two relative points of time to one another. We may thus classify the first as "absolute time", or time as judged by its absolute and static value as infinitely distant from beginning and end, whereas in the latter case we can classify it as "relative time".

In regards to absolute time, one thing further may be said. If one were to compare the two ideal "end points" of an infinity of time, I.E. the infinite past and infinite future, we are allowed by Kant to rightfully consider an infinite passage of time to have taken place, precisely because we are dealing with an actual infinity of time as taken by a whole. Yet what may not be so apparent, yet is so vital to point out, is that this infinite answer is precisely the same thing answer we take when we measure any point in time and measure it to either extreme. Subsequently, we are forced to admit that a measurement from any point in time to an extreme is equal to a measurement from one extreme to the other in absolute time, and therefore, they are identical.

Yet if the above was not clear: We have an instance where, contra-Kant's critique, we have an infinity of time that had an infinity of time take place rightfully with no problem. Moreover, we have found this to be equivalent to any finite time taken in relation to either infinity of time. The conclusion, then, is obvious: In absolute time, it is perfectly rational to conclude an infinity of time has passed to reach this point. Just as it did for the point before, after, and before and after that, and all other points in time and space. In fact, because all points in time are absolutely equivalent, all time holds an absolute distance from both extremes of the infinities of time, and this meshes up exactly with what the concept of eternity demands and entails when, quite literally, it has neither beginning nor end. Contra-Kant, time cannot be conceived as anything but including such concepts of infinite distance from past and future.

Yet there must be a final point made of another factor that drives home the eternal status of time as rational, and this goes back to relation. As noted in part II, it is affirmed that there are an infinite amount of parts to all infinities and in space - within which time manifests, works, and is wedded to - this demands infinite time. If this is so, then it makes perfect sense that every moment is preceded by an infinite series of moments, regardless of where judged, because there is an infinite variety of parts and combinations. Also, relative time comparisons are similarly infinite, because every point in time can be relatively evaluated compared to any other point in time and as the time is infinite, each can infinitely be so compared.

Part IV: In Conclusion

With the above proofs presented, it is put forth that time is not only rational, eternal, and a fundamental of existence, but that it is also a necessary contradiction to affirm the idea that such is not true, so long as one can speak of even imaginary motion or any other behaviour that demands time. That is to say, by asserting the idea that there can be motion and yet denying time, one is saying "there can be motion without the ability to move". When one finds out that time is not something utterly remote from everything else, but united with the other fundamentals, the impetus behind "time doesn't exist" arguments - that time is manifested in motion and other such phenomena - disappears, as it not true that time is supposed to be considered detached and remote from its effects. Do we refute roads by pointing to the fact that it is the car that is moving? Certainly not and thus does it behoove us not to refute time for something ever so similar.

Last edited: