Others ~ Selected Correspondence

Time ~ This Moment, Timeless and Eternity

I’m almost afraid to bring this subject up again, but WTF.

I am still at a loss to understand how or why a relativistic universe and a universe in which space and time are absolute would present themselves any differently to the human senses. Regardless of whether one is having a PCE or not, if there is no discernible difference between the ways in which a relativistic and non- relativistic universe would present themselves to the senses under ordinary circumstances here on Earth (and indeed that is what relativity would predict), precisely what faculty is it that allows an actualist to say with certainty: space and time are absolute?

I know you were involved in the lengthy discussions on this list on this very subject a while back, so I will save the details. Essentially, as I understand it – relativity assumes that time and space can ‘expand’ and ‘contract’ – or is different for different observers, thus dependent on the observer in some way. This treats time as if it actually has duration, as in, time itself would have a ‘flow.’

According to the actualists – the PCE reveals that there is no ‘flow’ to time – rather it is always here and now – there is no other place and time than here and now – so there is no duration. The ‘flow’ of time feels real, but is not actual. Time is actual, but eternal.

Conclusion: Relativity must be incorrect because it assumes that there is such a thing as temporal duration, where the PCE demonstrates that there is no duration to time – being eternal.

*

This is how things look from my piece of the real world: ‘Time’ and ‘temporal duration’ are one and the same thing. It is no more conceivable to me that time could exist without temporal duration than that space could exist without volume. One defines the other. One is the other! If time doesn’t have duration, why call it time? Why grant it any existence at all? How could it be distinguished from space only?

To say that time has no ‘duration’ means that it has no absolute measure – no absolute point of reference. If time has duration, then time itself moves – away or towards some standard. If the universe is infinite, then there is no standard – no boundary – how can you measure time then? With no non-arbitrary standard, what sense can be made of ‘duration’ or the notion that time ‘moves?’

After 5 minutes, you are the same ‘distance’ from the infinite past as you are from the infinite future – namely, infinite. After a billion years, you are the same distance from the infinite past as you are from the infinite future. What moves are things and events in space, not time itself.

It is similar for space – if space is also infinite, then there is no boundary or reference point – no ‘center’ – no ‘place’ but here – and every ‘here’ is ‘anywhere’ and ‘nowhere in particular.’ There is no absolute volume or measure of space if the universe is infinite – space can only be measured relative to some arbitrary standard.

An example of a good way to think about this is to ask whether you might notice the difference if your body were 6 feet tall or 6,000,000 feet tall (as long as everything was the same relative to your size). In an infinite universe – you don’t get any closer to a boundary regardless of your size.

So, you see that ‘time without duration’ just as ‘space without measure’ can be made sense of. Time is a sequence of events, time itself does not ‘move’ – so there can only be NOW. Objects that move in space can move relative to other objects, but they are always in the very same place – HERE, ‘anywhere,’ and ‘nowhere in particular.’ No 37 to No 60

Have you ever considered a possibility that on the balance of probability, Albert Einstein and NASA scientists are more likely to be right than Richard?

Yes of course. We had a lengthy discussion about all this months ago on this list.

I don’t know off hand where that conversation is located on the actualfreedom website, but I have seen fragments of it, and I’m sure you could find it by searching the Topica archives for more details if you are interested.

I mean, what are Richard’s credentials/achievements in the field of science?

Zilch. Except of course for a well thought out layman’s understanding.

And if his assertions are true and he has been examined by accredited psychiatrists/psychologists etc, surely they would have concluded that his condition is a find of the century. In which prominent scientific magazines have these accredited psychiatrists/psychologists published these earth shattering findings?

None that I am aware of. Of course I also am not aware that Richard has approached any ‘prominent scientific magazines.’

PCE is a subjective experience and could eventually prove to be a delusion of the senses. To say that Richard’s or anybody else’s perceptions in PCE (or conclusions extrapolated from it) are more valid that objective scientific calculations/measurements/observations and to persist with one’s belief in spite of the hard evidence against it is not exactly sensible.

Nobody is saying that the PCE is ‘more valid than objective scientific calculations/measurements/observations.’ Relativity is a theory about ‘objective scientific calculations/measurements/observations.’ Since any theory is still a theory and not fact, there are other theories that can account for the same data. Have you ever heard of ‘underdetermination of theory by data?’ It’s a hotly debated topic in philosophy of science which recognizes that data do not determine a correct theory with 100% certainty. In the realm of theory – there are always competitors.

Since this email is apparently a result of your reading my recent email to No 60 – you might also have noticed the reasons why I stated that the PCE and the theory of relativity are contradictory.

If relativity assumes that time has duration – and, If the PCE demonstrates there is actually no temporal duration, then, It’s one or the other – you can’t have it both ways. No 37 to No 74, 23.10.2004

I remember you talking about ‘cranking up one’s naiveté’ in a long ago post and I didn’t exactly know what you meant at the time. I am not sure I know exactly now either but I think I have a better inkling of what this means. When one is experiencing naiveté, there is not that curious ongoing sense of being ‘on guard’, defence systems at the alert, on the lookout for threats and evil, that there is usually in the self-centred experience. I sometimes experience this, for instance, at work when I am going about my duties, just doing the next sensible thing and not worrying about the outcome. It is really a wonderful experience and each moment is experienced more fully and seems in some way to be set apart from every other moment. There is not that sense of continuity or time. I don’t know how to put this exactly but it is something that I have noticed at other times and it seems important to describe it. Despite the feeling that I don’t know exactly what the hell I am talking about, I shall try to describe it. Each moment in time, the present, is so utterly fascinating and enjoyable that when one is experiencing naiveté (or at least what I think is being described as naiveté) there is no sense of this moment being other than ‘now’ – it is somehow set off from or set aside from one’s ordinary sense of there being a past, present, and future. Perhaps because there is no intervening ‘me’ with my cares, worries, anxieties, anger, resentment, and longings, there is not that centre by which everything is judged relative to ‘me’ and ‘my life’.

Does that make any sense? One is fully engaged in experiencing the delight of living in the present moment, and one goes about one’s day meeting people, interacting freely, and events happen of their own accord, unaffected by any ‘me’ pulling the strings making things happen. There is no sense of strain whatsoever and if strain does arise, it arises chiefly because there is a controller, again – ‘me’ – calling the shots and controlling events. This is, at the moment, my best description of the closest thing to innocence. By fully experiencing the delight in being here at this present moment, I am blithely unaware of any dangers encroaching – I am not caught up in the instinctual drama of survival. I am free to be here and enjoy the company of other people as I like, or, alternatively, to be by myself and enjoy the solitude. Gary to Peter

I did live alone for many years, prior to the onset of my current relationship. I had just about given up on ever finding a suitable mate. My living alone years were filled up with compulsive socializing, perhaps as a means of getting away from the gnawing feeling of aloneness. I was not very aware at that time, as I had myself buried in a spiritual program. I think the difference now when I find myself alone (as this week when I am home alone and my mate is at work) is that I am aware of nothing in particular happening in my head and heart. There is not much going on, which is delightful in itself. There is not that sting of feelings of anxious apartness and loneliness, as before.

Although I find that I can do many things well if I apply myself to them, I can relate to your comment about doing nothing really well. I think what has happened in my case is that the ambition to succeed has diminished a great deal, over a considerable period of time, both before and during my practice of actualism. I am very satisfied to do an adequate and competent job at what I do for work, for instance. Yet I do not feel I do it ‘really well’. I also have wide ranging interests outside of work and I like to expand my horizons by delving into subjects matters where I have little expertise. This gives me enormous satisfaction and engages my interest, so there is really no reason to be ‘bored’. Yet, I do still find that there are occasional periods when a lacklustre feeling of boredom creeps over me, however fleeting these may be. Like other similar experiences, since I have been practising the actualism method I have become intrigued and interested to know just what these feelings consist of, what they feel like, what triggered them, and such like questions. And I believe I have traced the feeling of boredom many times to a belief such as this: ‘I am not accomplishing anything’. Too, with the feeling of boredom there is a sense for me of time hanging heavily, a sense of ‘waste’, time slipping through my hands, the hour-glass running out, you might say. And I must say, at this point, that this is where I feel actualism is right on in finding that it is the instincts that are laid as a kind of veneer over the pristine and perfect actual world. It seems that the sense of time running out, the feeling of waste and ruin is closely associated with the feeling of boredom. Too, there seems to be a feeling of frustration that one’s desires are not being satisfied, so I think the instinct of desire is involved in experiences of boredom. At least that is what I have found. Gary to Vineeto

Actualism Homepage

 Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust