Time Doesn’t Exist - Consciousness as the Universe’s Foundational Dimension

[Age]

'Time' just being a word in relation 'the measuring of the duration between perceived events', and, the word, 'consciousness', being in relation to 'awareness', itself, then 'we' have definitions, which fit perfectly with the G.U.T.O.E.

Which is what can not be refuted nor countered.

Other definitions for those two words are just assumptions, theories, or guesses only, and which, by the way, do not fit in, nor together, anyway.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

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.

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 it’s exactly what occurs in situations like comas, alcohol-induced blackouts, or even during periods of deep, dreamless sleep. Here’s 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 there’s 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, let’s 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.

Let’s 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, doesn’t this prove time’s 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 individual’s 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 they’re 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 time’s 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 wouldn’t 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, it’s 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 universe’s 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.

Human beings are the only creatures that have experienced both consciousness and the absence of it. No other being we know of has had that experience. So how can we still doubt that time becomes instant when consciousness isn’t present, and that the time isn't a byproduct of consciousness?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic. Thank you for your precious time!

Bollocks.

Consciousness is an emergent property of matter. The 6th I'd say. Matter, which is infinite and eternal.

[Belinda]

Time, space, and force are measurements of change. If relative change did not exist then we'd have eternity e.g. the eternal now.

Consciousness is not a dimension . States of consciousness are states of brainmind. Those are not dimensions, you might as well say that states of one's stomach are dimensions.

[AM_]

'Time' just being a word in relation 'the measuring of the duration between perceived events', and, the word, 'consciousness', being in relation to 'awareness', itself, then 'we' have definitions, which fit perfectly with the G.U.T.O.E.

Which is what can not be refuted nor countered.

Other definitions for those two words are just assumptions, theories, or guesses only, and which, by the way, do not fit in, nor together, anyway.

It sounds like you're equating basic definitions with philosophical truth as if defining “time” as a measurement somehow explains what time is at a fundamental level. But that’s like saying defining “gravity” as “the force of attraction between masses” fully explains why gravity exists. Definitions are tools, not truths.

What I’m doing is questioning the existential basis of time itself. Not how we measure it, but whether it exists at all without conscious perception. If you’re going to dismiss that inquiry by saying “it doesn’t fit the definition,” then we might as well stop asking questions and accept all previous ideas without critique.

That’s not science or philosophy, that’s dogma!

[AM_]

Time, space, and force are measurements of change. If relative change did not exist then we'd have eternity e.g. the eternal now.

Consciousness is not a dimension . States of consciousness are states of brainmind. Those are not dimensions, you might as well say that states of one's stomach are dimensions.

If consciousness is just a state of the brain, then why do most creatures with brains show zero signs of awareness beyond instinctive reaction? Why can’t a spider or a goldfish reflect on its own existence? The presence of a brain clearly isn't enough for consciousness to be present.

So what exactly triggers consciousness? Where’s the switch? What separates reaction from reflection? Until that question has an answer, calling consciousness a “brain state” is just hand-waving.

[Phil8659]

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.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic. Thank you for your precious time!

I think people would like to hear your thoughts too, and not this pile of shit you laid out. Anyone who is the least bit literate knows, for example, knows that the elements of a thing are not a thing, in of themselves, i.e. time is a relative difference, i.e. not a thing. When you parse a relative, i.e. put limits upon it then you make a thing, like a second, a minute, a year, a nano-second.

So try to imagine, that you had a thought, and try again.

[Age]

'Time' just being a word in relation 'the measuring of the duration between perceived events', and, the word, 'consciousness', being in relation to 'awareness', itself, then 'we' have definitions, which fit perfectly with the G.U.T.O.E.

Which is what can not be refuted nor countered.

Other definitions for those two words are just assumptions, theories, or guesses only, and which, by the way, do not fit in, nor together, anyway.

It sounds like you're equating basic definitions with philosophical truth as if defining “time” as a measurement somehow explains what time is at a fundamental level.

Well if that is what 'itc sounds like, to you, then you certainly wer not listening, hearing, nor understanding.

And the fact that you never sought out any clarification, at all, shows that you never did want to really understand.

The fact that you arrived at what you have, here, shows you were not listening nor hearing at all. I actually said the very opposite of what you concluded. As, again, can be shown a d proved by my very words above, here.

But that’s like saying defining “gravity” as “the force of attraction between masses” fully explains why gravity exists. Definitions are tools, not truths.

If definitions' are not 'truths', then what are 'truths', exactly?

And, will you provide examples?

If no, then why not?

What I’m doing is questioning the existential basis of time itself.

But, what even is 'time', itself, to you, exactly?

And, is there a possibility that your own personal perceptions, definitions, and/or truths, here, could be wrong in any way at all?

Not how we measure it, but whether it exists at all without conscious perception. If you’re going to dismiss that inquiry by saying “it doesn’t fit the definition,” then we might as well stop asking questions and accept all previous ideas without critique.

That you did not read, and comprehend and understand, what I actually said, and meant, is very, very clear, here.

That’s not science or philosophy, that’s dogma!

What is 'dogma' are your preconceptions, which have led you absolutely completely astray.

Imagine basing all of what 'this one' has, here, without once seeking out clarification, and basing your Wrong conclusions off of and on your own pre-existing assumptions and beliefs, only.

[Age]

Time, space, and force are measurements of change. If relative change did not exist then we'd have eternity e.g. the eternal now.

Consciousness is not a dimension . States of consciousness are states of brainmind. Those are not dimensions, you might as well say that states of one's stomach are dimensions.

If consciousness is just a state of the brain, then why do most creatures with brains show zero signs of awareness beyond instinctive reaction? Why can’t a spider or a goldfish reflect on its own existence? The presence of a brain clearly isn't enough for consciousness to be present.

So what exactly triggers consciousness? Where’s the switch? What separates reaction from reflection? Until that question has an answer, calling consciousness a “brain state” is just hand-waving.

When, and if, you ever discover, or learn, and understand the actual difference between the Mind and the brain, and how they both work, exactly, then you have, already, gained the answer/s to your questions, here

[AM_]

Time, space, and force are measurements of change. If relative change did not exist then we'd have eternity e.g. the eternal now.

Consciousness is not a dimension . States of consciousness are states of brainmind. Those are not dimensions, you might as well say that states of one's stomach are dimensions.

If consciousness is just a state of the brain, then why do most creatures with brains show zero signs of awareness beyond instinctive reaction? Why can’t a spider or a goldfish reflect on its own existence? The presence of a brain clearly isn't enough for consciousness to be present.

So what exactly triggers consciousness? Where’s the switch? What separates reaction from reflection? Until that question has an answer, calling consciousness a “brain state” is just hand-waving.

When, and if, you ever discover, or learn, and understand the actual difference between the Mind and the brain, and how they both work, exactly, then you have, already, gained the answer/s to your questions, here

If you actually understand the difference between the brain and the mind, then I invite you to explain it, not just hint at it and pretend that's an answer. Because vague mysticism isn’t clarity.

[Age]

If consciousness is just a state of the brain, then why do most creatures with brains show zero signs of awareness beyond instinctive reaction? Why can’t a spider or a goldfish reflect on its own existence? The presence of a brain clearly isn't enough for consciousness to be present.

So what exactly triggers consciousness? Where’s the switch? What separates reaction from reflection? Until that question has an answer, calling consciousness a “brain state” is just hand-waving.

When, and if, you ever discover, or learn, and understand the actual difference between the Mind and the brain, and how they both work, exactly, then you have, already, gained the answer/s to your questions, here

If you actually understand the difference between the brain and the mind, then I invite you to explain it, not just hint at it and pretend that's an answer. Because vague mysticism isn’t clarity.

Just maybe I could explain the difference, but because of how the brain works, in conjunction with the belief system, and because you are 'currently' believing that I could not explain the difference you will see the explanation as just a pretense for for an answer you will also see the explanation as just vague mysticism and not clarity at all, right?

Is this a possibility to you?

Let 'us' see your clear answer and clarifying response, here.

If, a d when, you do, then I will begin providing the explanation.

However, and obviously, if you do not provide your answer and clarity, here, then I have just provided a other very clear example of how the brain works, in conjunction with emotions, and beliefs.

[Belinda]

If consciousness is just a state of the brain, then why do most creatures with brains show zero signs of awareness beyond instinctive reaction? Why can’t a spider or a goldfish reflect on its own existence? The presence of a brain clearly isn't enough for consciousness to be present.

So what exactly triggers consciousness? Where’s the switch? What separates reaction from reflection? Until that question has an answer, calling consciousness a “brain state” is just hand-waving.

When, and if, you ever discover, or learn, and understand the actual difference between the Mind and the brain, and how they both work, exactly, then you have, already, gained the answer/s to your questions, here

If you actually understand the difference between the brain and the mind, then I invite you to explain it, not just hint at it and pretend that's an answer. Because vague mysticism isn’t clarity.

There is only brainmind. Mentalistic language refers to the mind aspect of brainmind, and physicalistic language refers to the brain aspect of brainmind.

Age asks questions. That does not make him a "mystic".

[Age]

If the mind is observing time as an illusion than time exists as an illusion to the mind and yet it still sees time for it makes the distinction of an illusion occuring, and we determine reality by distinctions thus the distinction of an illusion makes the illusion real.

Your argument ends in paradox.

Perceiving time as an illusion doesn’t validate time as objectively real, it just shows that the mind is capable of constructing a framework in which it organizes events. The illusion of time arises only within consciousness. Outside consciousness, there is no perception, no distinction, and therefore, no illusion to observe. That’s not a paradox, that’s a boundary condition of awareness. The act of distinguishing an illusion is a function of consciousness, not proof of the illusion's independent existence.

In my hypothesis, the key insight is this: Time is not a fundamental dimension of reality. It’s a byproduct of consciousness. That means time arises only within consciousness as a mechanism to track and compare change. Without consciousness, there's no one to observe change, no one to experience "before and after", and therefore, no time.

- Consciousness is the first dimension, the fundamental fabric through which all experience becomes meaningful and possible.
- Time is at best the fifth dimension, downstream from space and motion and only relevant in the presence of consciousness.

The boundary of consciousness is the paradox of consciousness for it is the limits which form it as distinct. Given consciousness operates by distinction, for the perception of relations to occur and with relations order by and through which consciousness can operate, the limits of consciousness are the very distinction it creates by which to perceive itself. However considering consciousness perceives itself by what it is not, a deeper paradox occurs given conscious becomes what it is not and no definitive nature can be given to consciousness outside of it being paradoxical.

'Trying to' describe things, which you can not even define and do not yet even know what they are, with words that you do not yet even know the definition to, besides being Truly nonsensical, is, really, just a 'waste of time' as some might say, here.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

without humans, the universe would exist unmeasured and unlabeled

several waterfowl know what time it is even without a timepiece...

if they (as well as any migratory animal) didn't know what time it was, why would they migrate?

-Imp

Their hormonal hourglass is their timepiece. They don't need to know anything.

[Belinda]

without humans, the universe would exist unmeasured and unlabeled

several waterfowl know what time it is even without a timepiece...

if they (as well as any migratory animal) didn't know what time it was, why would they migrate?

-Imp

Their hormonal hourglass is their timepiece. They don't need to know anything.

The beautiful waterfowl still are in the Garden of Eden. We were kicked out because we insist on intellectualising everything, we even conceptualise time.
Presumably the mythical noble savage was closer to God.The NS was a political myth for the purposes of capitalism.

Unlike the waterfowl who don't need to evolve their species the cultural way we need to seek the good and the true without recourse to Authority in the shape of religious dogmas and controls usually in cahoots with political social controls.

[Age]

without humans, the universe would exist unmeasured and unlabeled

several waterfowl know what time it is even without a timepiece...

if they (as well as any migratory animal) didn't know what time it was, why would they migrate?

-Imp

Their hormonal hourglass is their timepiece. They don't need to know anything.

The beautiful waterfowl still are in the Garden of Eden. We were kicked out because we insist on intellectualising everything,

But, you human beings wee not sohcalled 'kicked out' because you insisted on intellectualizing every, nor any, thing, at all.

you wee 'kicked out' for doing what you, instinctively, 'know' is Wrong.

And, until you adults admit the Wrong, which you all do, be open and honest about 'it', while continually seeking to change, for the better, then you human beings will 'remain out', remain unwise, or none the wiser, and will not be allowed to 'return' back.

It is, literally, as simple as this.

we even conceptualise time.

So what?

'Conceptualizing' is what you human beings were born, and thus were just created, naturally, to do.


Presumably the mythical noble savage was closer to God.The NS was a political myth for the purposes of capitalism.

Unlike the waterfowl who don't need to evolve their species the cultural way we need to seek the good and the true without recourse to Authority in the shape of religious dogmas and controls usually in cahoots with political social controls.

Just for clarity sake, you human beings can not 'evolve your species'. The species 'human' always just naturally evolves any, and either, way.

That is 'you' control in 'which way' you evolve. That is; towards your own demise, destruction, and death, or, towards living in peace and harmony will all of the Universe's, or God's, creatures, once, and forever, more.

Again, it is all quite simple, really