Time is a Byproduct of Consciousness - Consciousness is Universes Fundamental Dimension
Imagine waking up tomorrow, realizing that thirty years of your life vanished, not forgotten, but as if they never existed at all. You jumped from infancy to adulthood in the blink of an eye, with no memories in between. This scenario sounds impossible, yet its exactly what occurs in situations like comas, alcohol-induced blackouts, or even during periods of deep, dreamless sleep. Heres the profound question that emerges: if time is genuinely a fundamental dimension of our universe, why does it cease to exist the moment consciousness fades away?
Numerous theories have been proposed about time and its relationship to the universe and its dimensions. Some of these theories have transformed how we understand reality. Yet theres a fundamental flaw or perhaps oversight: they always assume that time is absolute and universally measurable. But consider this, what if the opposite were true? What if time is entirely dependent on the presence of consciousness, making consciousness itself the true first dimension?
To grasp this, lets examine a curious paradox. Why does the relatively short human lifespan of 70 to 80 years feel so much longer than the 13.8 billion years before our existence? Initially, life seems slow and full of potential, yet as we age, looking back, it appears to rush past in an instant. Conversely, comprehending the concept of 13.8 billion years, an astronomical, unimaginable number, feels paradoxically shorter. Why? Because those billions of years passed without any consciousness experiencing them. From our perspective, all those cosmic events occurred instantly, making our personal lifespans seem vastly longer and more significant.
Consciousness exists only in the present. This may explain why, when we reflect on the past, it appears to have passed so quickly, yet during our day-to-day experiences, time seems to flow at a steady, more noticeable pace. Could this be because consciousness actively perceives time only in the present moment, while its absence from past events causes them to collapse into an instant? In essence, time seems to move more slowly when we are actively engaged in experiencing it, but once consciousness is no longer present within those moments, they compress, reinforcing the idea that time is a construct of awareness rather than an independent reality.
Now imagine a universe completely devoid of consciousness. No life, no beings to witness or measure events, just lifeless physical objects. Without observers, does time truly pass? Physical objects have no perception or ability to experience events, create memories, or recognize change. Without awareness, these objects simply exist. Events occur, changes happen, but there is no perception of waiting or intervals, changes become instantaneous.
In the reality where consciousness is completely absent, the evolution of physical objects happens instantaneously, there is absolutely no waiting or interval between events. When a physical object anywhere in the universe undergoes a physical change, the transition is immediate. Without consciousness, there is no in-between state, no pause, no waiting; all change is instant. When change is instantaneous, time becomes entirely irrelevant and ceases to exist. This timeless state remains until consciousness emerges to perceive and define intervals between events. Thus, consciousness is not merely another dimension, it is the primary dimension upon which the existence of time and space fundamentally depends.
Lets solidify this concept with tangible examples:
Consider someone waking from a 20-year coma. Upon awakening, they feel like they teleported instantly from the moment they became unconscious to waking up two decades later. To them, those years simply did not exist. Critics might argue: But the world continued to change, events unfolded around them, doesnt this prove times independent existence? Ironically, this objection strengthens the hypothesis. The presence of other conscious beings maintained a collective timeline, proving that time is always subjective, tied uniquely to each individuals consciousness. In absence of any conscious observer, time vanishes completely.
Similarly, the experience of dreaming provides another powerful example. Many of us have experienced different dreams, especially some dreams in which we would create some sort of a different life, work & friends. While asleep, a person can exist simultaneously in two distinct realities: the physical world (where theyre lying asleep for just a few hours) and the surreal dream world, where days or even weeks seem to unfold. While Sleeping we are able to simultaneously exist in two different realities, the reality in which we are sleeping, and the reality in which we are consciously experiencing different events (dreaming). Upon waking, however, the sleeper often feels as though these hours passed instantly. This stark contrast demonstrates that times existence and its pace are directly determined by consciousness. Were time an independent, universal dimension, it would never fluctuate so drastically between simultaneous states of existence. Demonstrating that consciousness defines both the meaning and flow of time. If time were truly a dimension, it should remain constant regardless of the presence or absence of consciousness, with no dependency on awareness. Some argue that this is a subjective experience, but that assumption is incorrect. If time were purely subjective, the same individual wouldnt be able to exist in two different states simultaneously, each with its own distinct perception of time passing. This reinforces the idea that time is a byproduct of consciousness, emerging only when consciousness is present and vanishing entirely in its absence.
Even simpler life forms reinforce this. Take butterflies, living mere days or weeks without genuine self-awareness. Without the ability to perceive their existence or track their passage through life, their short lifespan would feel instantaneous. Whether living a week or hypothetically a hundred thousand years, without consciousness, both experiences collapse into an indistinguishable moment. They exist in a state of pure present-moment instinct, meaning their lifespan might feel like an instant, or they might not feel time at all.
To them, its not short or long, it simply is.
Consider also the human experience from conception through early childhood. When a baby is developing in the womb, it has no conscious recollection despite its biological formation and growth. Even after birth, infants exhibit minimal sensory awareness but lack true reflective consciousness, the deeper self-awareness needed to experience and track personal identity, meaningful events, or the passage of time. Despite a fully active brain, the baby lacks full consciousness for several years. Most individuals have very few, if any, memories from before the age of five or six, to them it feels as instantaneous. This clearly illustrates a critical point: an active brain does not necessarily imply consciousness. Without consciousness, awareness, recollection, and the very existence of experienced time vanish completely, emphasizing consciousness as the foundational dimension. Consciousness and spirit might be the same thing.
All these examples reinforce a striking conclusion:
If consciousness is the true foundation of reality, then it must also be the force behind existence itself.
The only way to explain the existence of the universe, and any other galaxies that may exist, is through consciousness, which many would call God. If we trace reality back to its very origin, we reach a state of absolute nothingness, a point where not even the smallest particle existed.
Now, if something could emerge from absolute nothing, then the idea that death leads to an eternal void of nonexistence is fundamentally flawed. If existence arose from nothing once, then the potential for new experiences after death remains inevitable. Just as the universe came into being from what appears to be nothingness, consciousness does not simply vanish, it transitions, because true nothingness is unstable if it can give rise to something at all.
Furthermore, even if the period after death were to last for trillions of years, it would feel instantaneous until the next experience emerges. Just as time ceases to exist when consciousness is absent, like in deep sleep, coma, or the pre-birth state, any duration of non-existence would collapse into an instant. Time only exists when consciousness is actively present, meaning that the experience of an afterlife, reincarnation, or another form of existence would come immediately after death from a subjective standpoint.
If scientists were to oppose the idea that some experience must occur after death, they would inherently contradict the very foundation of the universes origin. The widely accepted scientific view suggests that the universe emerged from nothing, meaning that at some point, absolute nothingness transitioned into something.
If one argues that after death, there is only eternal nothingness, they must then explain why this logic does not apply to the beginning of existence itself, where absolute nothingness still resulted in the emergence of something. If something can come from nothing, then the idea that death results in an eternal, unchanging void becomes invalid, because history has already demonstrated that nothingness is not permanent, it gives rise to existence.
If, on the other hand, something did create everything, whether one calls it a higher intelligence, God, or fundamental consciousness, then this further supports the idea that existence is not random, but a structured phenomenon with continuity beyond what we perceive as life and death. Either way, something must happen after death, because nonexistence itself has already been disproven by the very fact that we exist now.
This argument leaves no room for counterarguments, either one accepts that something can arise from nothing (which means death is not the end), or they must reject the very principles upon which modern cosmology and physics are built. In both cases, the existence of consciousness (God) remains undeniable.
Consciousness creates time by perceiving moments and connecting them into a continuous narrative. Without consciousness, reality loses the very dimension that gives meaning and structure to existence. Without awareness, there is no waiting, no anticipation, only immediate, instantaneous change.
This revelation positions consciousness not merely as a byproduct of brain activity but as the foundational dimension upon which time and space depend. Recognizing this changes not only our understanding of physics but also profoundly redefines what it means to be alive, conscious, and human, but not only human.
Numerous theories have been proposed about time and its relationship to the universe and its dimensions. Some of these theories have transformed how we understand reality. Yet theres a fundamental flaw or perhaps oversight: they always assume that time is absolute and universally measurable. But consider this, what if the opposite were true? What if time is entirely dependent on the presence of consciousness, making consciousness itself the true first dimension?
To grasp this, lets examine a curious paradox. Why does the relatively short human lifespan of 70 to 80 years feel so much longer than the 13.8 billion years before our existence? Initially, life seems slow and full of potential, yet as we age, looking back, it appears to rush past in an instant. Conversely, comprehending the concept of 13.8 billion years, an astronomical, unimaginable number, feels paradoxically shorter. Why? Because those billions of years passed without any consciousness experiencing them. From our perspective, all those cosmic events occurred instantly, making our personal lifespans seem vastly longer and more significant.
Consciousness exists only in the present. This may explain why, when we reflect on the past, it appears to have passed so quickly, yet during our day-to-day experiences, time seems to flow at a steady, more noticeable pace. Could this be because consciousness actively perceives time only in the present moment, while its absence from past events causes them to collapse into an instant? In essence, time seems to move more slowly when we are actively engaged in experiencing it, but once consciousness is no longer present within those moments, they compress, reinforcing the idea that time is a construct of awareness rather than an independent reality.
Now imagine a universe completely devoid of consciousness. No life, no beings to witness or measure events, just lifeless physical objects. Without observers, does time truly pass? Physical objects have no perception or ability to experience events, create memories, or recognize change. Without awareness, these objects simply exist. Events occur, changes happen, but there is no perception of waiting or intervals, changes become instantaneous.
In the reality where consciousness is completely absent, the evolution of physical objects happens instantaneously, there is absolutely no waiting or interval between events. When a physical object anywhere in the universe undergoes a physical change, the transition is immediate. Without consciousness, there is no in-between state, no pause, no waiting; all change is instant. When change is instantaneous, time becomes entirely irrelevant and ceases to exist. This timeless state remains until consciousness emerges to perceive and define intervals between events. Thus, consciousness is not merely another dimension, it is the primary dimension upon which the existence of time and space fundamentally depends.
Lets solidify this concept with tangible examples:
Consider someone waking from a 20-year coma. Upon awakening, they feel like they teleported instantly from the moment they became unconscious to waking up two decades later. To them, those years simply did not exist. Critics might argue: But the world continued to change, events unfolded around them, doesnt this prove times independent existence? Ironically, this objection strengthens the hypothesis. The presence of other conscious beings maintained a collective timeline, proving that time is always subjective, tied uniquely to each individuals consciousness. In absence of any conscious observer, time vanishes completely.
Similarly, the experience of dreaming provides another powerful example. Many of us have experienced different dreams, especially some dreams in which we would create some sort of a different life, work & friends. While asleep, a person can exist simultaneously in two distinct realities: the physical world (where theyre lying asleep for just a few hours) and the surreal dream world, where days or even weeks seem to unfold. While Sleeping we are able to simultaneously exist in two different realities, the reality in which we are sleeping, and the reality in which we are consciously experiencing different events (dreaming). Upon waking, however, the sleeper often feels as though these hours passed instantly. This stark contrast demonstrates that times existence and its pace are directly determined by consciousness. Were time an independent, universal dimension, it would never fluctuate so drastically between simultaneous states of existence. Demonstrating that consciousness defines both the meaning and flow of time. If time were truly a dimension, it should remain constant regardless of the presence or absence of consciousness, with no dependency on awareness. Some argue that this is a subjective experience, but that assumption is incorrect. If time were purely subjective, the same individual wouldnt be able to exist in two different states simultaneously, each with its own distinct perception of time passing. This reinforces the idea that time is a byproduct of consciousness, emerging only when consciousness is present and vanishing entirely in its absence.
Even simpler life forms reinforce this. Take butterflies, living mere days or weeks without genuine self-awareness. Without the ability to perceive their existence or track their passage through life, their short lifespan would feel instantaneous. Whether living a week or hypothetically a hundred thousand years, without consciousness, both experiences collapse into an indistinguishable moment. They exist in a state of pure present-moment instinct, meaning their lifespan might feel like an instant, or they might not feel time at all.
To them, its not short or long, it simply is.
Consider also the human experience from conception through early childhood. When a baby is developing in the womb, it has no conscious recollection despite its biological formation and growth. Even after birth, infants exhibit minimal sensory awareness but lack true reflective consciousness, the deeper self-awareness needed to experience and track personal identity, meaningful events, or the passage of time. Despite a fully active brain, the baby lacks full consciousness for several years. Most individuals have very few, if any, memories from before the age of five or six, to them it feels as instantaneous. This clearly illustrates a critical point: an active brain does not necessarily imply consciousness. Without consciousness, awareness, recollection, and the very existence of experienced time vanish completely, emphasizing consciousness as the foundational dimension. Consciousness and spirit might be the same thing.
All these examples reinforce a striking conclusion:
If consciousness is the true foundation of reality, then it must also be the force behind existence itself.
The only way to explain the existence of the universe, and any other galaxies that may exist, is through consciousness, which many would call God. If we trace reality back to its very origin, we reach a state of absolute nothingness, a point where not even the smallest particle existed.
Now, if something could emerge from absolute nothing, then the idea that death leads to an eternal void of nonexistence is fundamentally flawed. If existence arose from nothing once, then the potential for new experiences after death remains inevitable. Just as the universe came into being from what appears to be nothingness, consciousness does not simply vanish, it transitions, because true nothingness is unstable if it can give rise to something at all.
Furthermore, even if the period after death were to last for trillions of years, it would feel instantaneous until the next experience emerges. Just as time ceases to exist when consciousness is absent, like in deep sleep, coma, or the pre-birth state, any duration of non-existence would collapse into an instant. Time only exists when consciousness is actively present, meaning that the experience of an afterlife, reincarnation, or another form of existence would come immediately after death from a subjective standpoint.
If scientists were to oppose the idea that some experience must occur after death, they would inherently contradict the very foundation of the universes origin. The widely accepted scientific view suggests that the universe emerged from nothing, meaning that at some point, absolute nothingness transitioned into something.
If one argues that after death, there is only eternal nothingness, they must then explain why this logic does not apply to the beginning of existence itself, where absolute nothingness still resulted in the emergence of something. If something can come from nothing, then the idea that death results in an eternal, unchanging void becomes invalid, because history has already demonstrated that nothingness is not permanent, it gives rise to existence.
If, on the other hand, something did create everything, whether one calls it a higher intelligence, God, or fundamental consciousness, then this further supports the idea that existence is not random, but a structured phenomenon with continuity beyond what we perceive as life and death. Either way, something must happen after death, because nonexistence itself has already been disproven by the very fact that we exist now.
This argument leaves no room for counterarguments, either one accepts that something can arise from nothing (which means death is not the end), or they must reject the very principles upon which modern cosmology and physics are built. In both cases, the existence of consciousness (God) remains undeniable.
Consciousness creates time by perceiving moments and connecting them into a continuous narrative. Without consciousness, reality loses the very dimension that gives meaning and structure to existence. Without awareness, there is no waiting, no anticipation, only immediate, instantaneous change.
This revelation positions consciousness not merely as a byproduct of brain activity but as the foundational dimension upon which time and space depend. Recognizing this changes not only our understanding of physics but also profoundly redefines what it means to be alive, conscious, and human, but not only human.
Art:The following hypothesis represents my independent exploration and reflections on consciousness and time, developed through personal inquiry and logical reasoning. The ideas presented here are based on my own thoughts and personal explorations into consciousness, time, and reality.
Comments (32)
There are various methods, such as through meditation, that you can ''unlock'' something the Buddhist call Jhana. This state of hyper-awareness, or a heightened consciousness, is very real, and something I've experienced as well, but only very briefly. I believe that consciousness itself is also flowing, evolving, and in motion, just like water, time, and evolution. Who knows what the descendants of humans one million years from now will understand about the universe? Assuming life on Earth still exists, of course.
What if you fall while walking alone. You hit your head and lose consciousness. What if you regain consciousness, it is snowing, and see that you are covered in a dusting of snow.
So glad you said that! It's something I too, think about often. In an unrealised universe, birth and death may as well happen in the same instant. This brand of philosophy (I guess it's some degree of Idealism) is certainly picking back up after a long lullas science has been our go-to for the last century or soand I couldn't be happier. The classic [I]Hard Problem of Consciousness[/I] is as vexing for materialists as ever. People are once again thinking 'How does something as brilliant, as complicated, as individual, and as disparate as consciousness come to be from electrical signals and a squishy mass of [I]pink[/i]?'.
That consciousness might be fundamental to existence is a very real possibility and, like say, an idea that's being espoused more and more. It's a topic I love talking about.
The idea that perhaps an absurd, instant, meaningless universe is one with no observers ties into the [I]Anthropic Principle[/I]. That perhaps the universe is structured for life to arise, not necessarily by God, but by the very nature of existence. Have you looked into that at all?
When it comes to Anthropic Principle, I personally have the opposite point of view. I think that the universe was created due to consciousness being present beforehand. Some like to refer to it as God, and some as Energy, some even as Universe, but fundamentally science seems to lack logical explanation when it comes to Universe's creation. If something came out of nothing (Big Bang Theory), then automatically, death is not the end for human beings, and in fact there will never be an end even for universe, because if something can come out of nothing, then there will always be something coming out of nothing, and existing or also known as an endless existence. But, based on our knowledge and empirical evidence, there has to be something in order for something else to come to life, and in my opinion, consciousness has existed long before anything else. Is it God? Could be. Is it Energy? Also could be. But, I'm certain consciousness is the fundamental dimension of any existence. This is contradictory with the above written hypothesis, but if I'd delve deeper to explain the details of my thought pattern on this matter, it would make sense.
My hypothesis supports the fact that death in either case is not the end. Regardless of the conclusion on how universe was created, death seems to be just a transitioning phase for humans and other living beings that possess consciousness. In a way I think that - Consciousness is not a byproduct of the universe, it is the source of it.
As you mentioned, "in an unrealised universe, birth and death may as well happen in the same instant", I couldnt agree more. It really does feel like they happen all at once.
What I think is fundamentally flawed in todays philosophy, physics, and religion is their refusal to coexist or even complement one another. They don't need to fully agree all the time, but when a philosophical idea leans toward something spiritual or religious, I dont see why people are so quick to rebrand it as just energy instead of calling it what it might simply be: God. Or the other way around.
From what Ive been observing, science has almost become a religion of its own, often dismissive, even arrogant, toward anything that doesnt fit its framework. If something cant be proven in a lab, its instantly labeled as false, no matter how real or widespread the human experience of it may be. Too many scientists seem too eager to ignore or invalidate empirical evidence simply because it doesnt come wrapped in formulas and peer-reviewed studies.
This is all too true. I'm Uni-aged now, and my whole life I've been deep into STEM, academically. I meet many people who present themselves as staunch, analytical atheists who pride themselves on their capacity to call-out logical fallacies and on their endless need for material evidence. What initially disillusioned me from the 'framework' you mention was actually seeing, in sixth-form, how my chemistry teacher totally looked down on the humanities and people who enjoy them. It's a common theme in STEM; bashing other people's interests, even transcendent ones like music, literature, and art, on account of a perceived academic [i]uselessness[/I]. Then as I started reading [I]Freud[/I] and [I]Jung[/I], who often took great liberties with their work ([I]Jung[/I] was unabashedly and self-admittedly spiritual), it just clickedscience isn't everything, nor can it explain it.
Quoting ArtM
That's the part of idealism (or whatever this philosophy is strictly called) that I take the most solace in. It's intuitive that, if the universe is predicated around a primary, fundamental consciousness, then death is not the end, and nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Science can often tend towards some very depressing conclusions; it leans absurdeverything is random, everything is mechanistic collisions and interactions, you blip out of existence when you snuff-it, everything will end in the big rip and the whole universe will be dark forever. Not only is this counter-intuitive (the universe starts from nothing then just . . . dies?), but it just seems so pointlessly macabre, especially when alternatives like the one you and I are discussing now are, and a lot of 'materialists' don't like to hear it, just as likely, if not more so, to be correct. Of course, it being macabre is not any testament to its veracity; dark things do happen, but because science instils in students that nothing has any real meaning and everything is random, macabre 'solutions' are seen by them as intrinsically more likely to be [I]right[/I]. I think a lot of STEM students are honestly scared to be spiritual (or even philosophical in any way that deviates from materialism) in any capacity because of the cognitive dissonance that is concomitant with their academia.
Quoting ArtM
This is true. It's unfortunate too, because there are people, like you and I, and anyone else who could have this conversation, who want to see that [I]cooperation[/I], but the systems in-place, religious, philosophical, physical, and otherwise, are simply too rigid to allow for it [I]en mass[/i]. There are too many physicists who see religion as a pure sham and philosophy as 'hokey'; too many religious people unwilling to interact with science that challenges their beliefs. I think it's half fear and half closed-mindedness. Some people would rather exist in one framework than have the behemoth task of making sense of the world whilst integrating three.
The ironic thing is, many 20th century quantum-mechanics pioneers were delightfully open to religion and philosophy because what they were interacting with was, as they recognised it, unexplainable without something moreanother exotic term in the equation. Now, though, we seem to largely operate on the predisposition of everything being explainable through science with sufficient work put in.
I think, however, that this is beginning to slow down, and people are, like we've said, finally coming around to other explanations for their reality.
Quoting ArtM
That's fair. To be honest, I've never fully consolidated my view on the Anthropic Principle. I've got no concrete beliefs as to its [I]correctness, per se[/I], but kind of view it as thus through a theoretical lens: Consciousness is fundamental. Always there. Life, like us, is merely harnessing it. Since any universe where life could not arise (one that goes unrealised) may as well have never existed at all (for without conscious life to observe and experience it, as mentioned earlier, its lifespan is negligible), only ones where life [I]can[/I] arise, truly exist, and so those irrational numbers and other conditions we notice that are fundamental to life are the exact values and states we find them to be.
It's not very complete, and is kind-of fraught with shaky logic. It's still something I'm actively thinking about. Maybe it doesn't link up, maybe it does in some way that's yet to be put together.
There seems to be an error along these lines going on in this thread. It's a very common, popular misunderstanding.
What do you mean when you say, "with no dependency on awareness.," above?
"Dependency on awareness" means that if time were truly a fundamental dimension, it would exist and operate independently of any conscious observer. It wouldnt require a state of awareness (consciousness) to function. But my hypothesis argues the opposite, that time is not a self-contained dimension, but rather a byproduct of consciousness.
Your comment on how science has become a kind of secular religion hit home. It feels like we've traded one set of unquestionable dogmas for another. Theres a sense of pride in not believing, which is ironic, considering how much belief is required to fully commit to purely materialist assumptions, especially when it comes to the origins of the universe, consciousness, and what happens after death. The truth is, no one knows for sure, and if they claim to, theyve likely stopped thinking.
I also appreciated your thoughts on death and idealism. The materialist conclusion, that consciousness arises from meat and vanishes forever at death, feels not just grim, but also logically incomplete. If consciousness is fundamental, then death becomes not a disappearance, but a transition, maybe a return. And like you said, while thats not evidence in itself, its no less reasonable than the view that all this is random and accidental.
Your final take on the Anthropic Principle was beautifully put. I agree completely, a universe that is unperceived is indistinguishable from one that never existed. If we experience reality, then consciousness is not just an observer, it may be the very fabric that gives reality form. Ive often said, Whats the point of a cosmos with no one to witness it?
Were all still piecing this together, but I think thats the point. Truth isnt behind a locked door with a single key, its a process, a pursuit. And like you, I think the synthesis between science, philosophy, and spiritual insight is not only possible, but necessary.
Disappointing opening paragraph. Why does it "cease to exist"? Just because some person isn't perceiving it, that means it "ceases to exist"? Hmmm... I'm pretty sure if a person is in a coma for 10 years, their body shows all the signs of time continuing to exist...
Maybe OP lacks object permanence, or is some kind of solipsist. Otherwise I can't really make sense of this.
Yes, a person in a coma for 10 years will age. Cells break down, muscles atrophy, nails grow, all measurable changes. But those changes aren't time itself. Time, as we experience and define it, isnt just a sequence of changes, its the conscious awareness of those changes.
While that person is in a coma, others who remain conscious are the ones perceiving the passage of time, watching the calendar flip, the seasons change, the body age. Their consciousness gives structure to those changes, it gives time a context.
But heres the twist, what if no one was conscious at all? No one to observe, to track, to experience? In such a scenario, those changes would still technically happen, but they would happen without a timeline, without memory, and without anticipation. They would occur in an instant, or rather, in no time at all. There would be no experienced passage, just transformation.
Thats the point, change is objective, but time is experiential. Without consciousness to experience it, the concept of time loses all meaning. It's not that "nothing happens," it's that without a conscious mind to interpret the "happening," there is no passage, no before or after, just a state, and then another.
So I'll say again, that without consciousness, we would not be aware of time passing, is a very different thing to time being brought about by consciousness. You want the latter from the former.
Time passes when you are asleep. Therefore consciousness is not needed for time to pass.
How extraordinary, to have to point this out to an adult.
If changes occur constantly, but there's no consciousness around, wouldn't that change be instantaneous?
Anyways, thank you for pointing it out. I will take notes! :)
The sun sets and rises, the stars turn, the frost settles in - You see the changes when you wake.
You do not have direct experience of other folk's consciousness. You only infer it. So why can;t you also infer that time passes while you are unconscious?
Anyways, this is my hypothesis, you're welcome to have yours.
I'm not seeing it. Perhaps it's not as clear as you think.
Is your claim that time does not pass when you sleep? No, becasue other folk are awake. So if we all go to sleep, no time passes? Why would time stop becasue we were all unconscious? It was there before the world was formed, so far as makes sense.
that seems like an assumption, not a fact
Time didn't cease while you slept - it passed. Thirty years of it, demonstrably.
Dude, learn to use a calendar.
I think you are enthralled with a pretty thought. It's not such a good one on reflection. If you go to sleep and thirty yers pass, then by that very supposition, time passes when you are unconscious.
I will not be engaging with you anymore, since I'm under the impression you're looking for someone to argue with, and you're continuously ignoring what the other one has to say.
Your explanations might not be as convincing as you suppose.
Let's go back to that first paragraph:
Quoting ArtM
The hypothesis is that thirty years have passed, while you were unconscious. And that also time ceased to exist while you were unconscious. It's self-contradictory.
Welcome to philosophy.
If I were to fall asleep and get kidnapped during my sleep, I'd wake up and find myself in a different location, with no conscious awareness of what has happened. Yet, the fact that it has happened, and that this took time (since we cannot teleport), proves that fundamental time is real. You are correct that in regards to subjective time, these events didn't happen. You lose consciousness once you fall asleep, and you regain it when you wake up. To you, the observer, it is instant. Consciousness, in this sense, seems inherent to the universe itself. You are either conscious, enabling you to experience reality, or you are not, and everything passes by you without your awareness of it. This also explains the mystery behind the fascinating history of our reality, and how everything works the way it does, without needing a conscious observer to experience them, unless the universe itself is also conscious.
Consciousness and time are obviously connected, and their true nature remains a mystery to us, even to this day. It will probably take an immense amount of time for the human species to gain a more fundamental understanding of reality, if we survive for that long, that is.
In short: ArtM is mostly pointing to subjective time, and he is completely correct in this regard. Yet, there is also something as fundamental time, not related to the conscious observer who is experiencing it, and this element may not be forgotten if we wish to fully understand time, and how it works.
In my hypothesis, consciousness isnt just an emergent property of biological systems, its the very foundation of reality itself. You could equate it to what many traditions have referred to as God, but stripped of religious dogma, simply the primordial, formless awareness that exists beyond space, time, and physical laws.
Consciousness in my hypothesis is a reference to God. Therefore, making it the first dimension, putting it above all other dimensions.
If we frame consciousness this way, as the first dimension, preceding all others, it resolves a lot of classic philosophical dilemmas, including "How can God exist everywhere, simultaneously?" It becomes clear when you see consciousness not as something within reality, but as the fundamental backdrop behind it.
That perspective also reshapes how we think about time. What you're calling "subjective time" (human perception of time passing) and "fundamental time" (the measurable, external progression of events) aren't actually separate. If consciousness precedes the universe, then even "fundamental time" emerges as a byproduct of consciousness itself. Without consciousness, what I'm calling the first dimension, there is no frame of reference for time to exist, whether on a cosmic scale or within personal experience.
Human experience being the subjective time, and consciousness (God) being the fundamental time, which would explain why things would still happen instantaneously for human experience (subjective time) and also explain that time is fundamentally a byproduct of consciousness, as without God's existence (Consciousnesses existence) there wouldn't be a time existing.
In that sense, time exists because consciousness exists. Without it, even fundamental time collapses into meaninglessness.
The subconscious mind holds all memories of a person. The conscious mind can focus on one thing at any given moment. Its duty is important, so it is given what is necessary in a given situation. I have a thread on the dependency of time on the mind here.
Such a perspective is gaining more traction and it definitely makes sense. Consciousness being God is a theory that is extremely recent but it has some solid logic behind it, although some sages from our ancient past already hinted at all this. ("The kingdom of God is within you.")
This also raises the question of what happens to the self during sleep or after death. Is there even a 'me' or is it all illusion? What difference would it make if there were 100 billion humans or just one? And what makes humans so different from other animals here on Earth?
I think you are onto something for sure. Consciousness and time are so vital to reality, yet their mystery still eludes us to this day.
I agree one hundred percent with your questions - "This also raises the question of what happens to the self during sleep or after death. Is there even a 'me' or is it all illusion? What difference would it make if there were 100 billion humans or just one? And what makes humans so different from other animals here on Earth?"
This must be thought through, I think at the moment we're having a hard time to determine and differentiate the reality. I came across this example somewhere, cant remember exactly where, but it stuck with me - "Imagine two twins inside their mothers womb. For them, that environment is everything, warm, safe, familiar. Over time, it creates the illusion that their entire existence is just that space. Now, lets say, hypothetically one of the twins is terrified to leave the womb, convinced that anything beyond it is death, the end of everything they know. But of course, we know that leaving the womb is actually the beginning of their real life, an entirely new level of existence they simply couldnt comprehend from their limited perspective inside. What seems to be the end of something (life) for the babies, it turns out to be the beginning of everything."
This puts in perspective so much about life and how paradoxical it can feel at certain moments, but the experiences hidden beyond our present experience might just be the beginning of everything.