01 Home "A Brief History of Timelessness"
(Matt Welcome, aka Matt Marsden, on Twitter twitter.com/MattWelcome )
What is 'A Brief History of Timelessness' all about?
This site is all about the possibility that we may be completely wrong to assume a thing called 'Time' exists.
What makes this particular discussion unique is that rather than starting from the assumption that "a thing called time exists", and trying to work out the reality from there, A Brief History of Timelessness, starts without that assumption, and simply asks...
What do we actually observe?
In answering this question it is suggested...
We observe that matter/energy exists, and,
matter seems to be able to move, change and interact in all directions.
From here, rather than just assuming a thing called time must exist for things to be able to exist and move, we ask a key question...
If the matter in the universe just exists, moves, changes and interacts in all directions...
not 'heading into a future', and
not 'leaving a temporal past behind it'...
Then, would this be enough to mislead us into wrongly assuming there was a 'past' and/or 'future' and thus time?
It is this question and what it reveals as it is applied to common observations, and sophisticated theories that is at the heart of the possibility of timelessness, and that is examined in detail in these pages, videos, and the Book.
Please enjoy the site
Some reviews of the Book and Show "A Brief History of Timelessness".
"Do you Believe in Time?", "Does Time exist?", "What is Time?", "Is Time-travel possible?"...
These may seem like valid questions, but they may also be mis-leading from the outset, because they all start by innocently apparently asking about a thing called "Time".
And if we ask about a specific thing, then we are half way to assuming that thing may exist already, and if it actually does not then we may never get to see this! Which may be why publications like "Scientific American" publish specials on 'time'
suggesting [Time] -
It begins, it ends, it's real, it's an illusion. It's the ultimate paradox.
All starting from the assumption a thing called time exists, without first testing our most basic observations and conclusions.
So instead, "A Brief History of Timelessness" starts by asking not the clichéd and scientifically unanswered question "what is time?", but instead the hopefully, far less leading question...
And from the easily checked assumption that "matter seems to exist, move, change and interact", the book explores the possibility that this alone may be enough to mislead us into possibly wrongly assuming a "past", a "future", and thus "time" all may exist.
The main issue this work examines is the fact that wherever you or I think we are talking about something called 'The Past', we are always only ever actually talking about something we recollect in our minds. And, while the contents of our minds seem to suggest it is 'obvious' there is 'a past', this work shows how the contents of our minds may not be good enough reason to suspect the idea of "the past" points to a real phenomena.
From there we see that if 'the past' does not actually, really, exist in any way at all whatsoever... (other than as an idea in our minds...) then there is also no reason to think 'the future' actually really exists either, any we may just be falsely assuming that ideas we can form in our head must be "about the future", and thus a reason to suspect it exists.
If 'the past' and 'the future' do not actually exist, and are just useful ideas, it is shown that instead we may just be in a world full of moving and changing matter, which, wrongly gives us the false impression that there is also a thing called time, and if there is no time, then it cannot have a flow, order, or "arrow".
But this still leaves us with a lot of essentially valid scientific theories and observations to be accounted for. In particular Einstein’s Special and General Relativity. Re which the author sets out to show how the essence of reference frame and gravitational dilation can still be entirely valid, but may be not about "time dilation", but just about "rates of change", "now".
What this site is, and is not about.
For some reason, some people seem to assume this site is about every complicated problem they can imagine, and that it suggests nothing exists, or that everything we think we know is wrong...
As such some people seem to add things I have not said, to what I’m saying, and then complain that what they have asserted makes no sense.
It is important to note, that all I am addressing throughout my work is the “theory of time”, and all I am doing is showing how that theory may be entirely unfounded, unproven, unnecessary, and moot – because everything the theory purports to explain, and all the apparent paradoxes it seems to present, seem to be able to be explained and resolved if we very carefully consider the possibility...
“what IF everything in the universe just exists moves and interacts, not ‘heading into a future’, not ‘leaving a temporal past’ ‘behind it’, and with no such thing as ‘time’ existing or being necessary for motion.
The reason for investigating this is because many lay people and professional scientists seem to have addressed the problem of time in rather incomplete and unscientific ways, jumping to conclusions and accepting a complete lack of evidence, and circular logic in their arguments.
And because no other article or book, writer, or scientist, on the subject of time, that I have found, has considered the above question and possibility, let alone considered it and been able to dismiss it in favour of 'time' existing. Including for example leading publications such as,
“Scientific American” to conjecture,[TIME] “It begins, it ends, it's real, it's an illusion. It's the ultimate paradox.”,
While I think ‘time’ can be shown to be a (in places useful) misunderstanding, without any paradoxes. And The constructive aspect of this approach is that it may eliminate and resolve all problems , questions and paradoxes around the theory of time.
Eliminating an invalid component from our T.O.E or G.U.T, and for example solving the apparent “problem of time”, and explain why we may be wrong from the outset to assume ‘time’ with a direction seems apparent on a classical scale, but not on a quantum scale.
Please use the main table, index to the left and the search box at the top right of this page to navigate the site.
If the SEARCH box is not working in your browser try the googlesites direct link
And please drop me a line (while I set up the blog) if you have any questions,
aka Matt Welcome