I’ve been negligent about writing recently, and honestly a bit apprehensive about publishing this particular post; it may come across as “out there” to many people.
But then I saw that I have a new follower, and it appears that she likes philosophy. So… feel free to tear this post apart Saania. There will be no hard feelings on my part.
I concluded part one by writing:
Color is a quality of light, which is a form of energy. Light is an elemental component of our universe, and it even sets the maximum speed with which space can be traversed. I think this is because light and space are intricately connected.
What about light and time?
So it’s time to elaborate on that with some unscientific, grasping-at-straws random thoughts that wandered into my mind, and convinced me to liberate them onto this blog. I’m neither a philosopher nor an astrophysicist… but I watched some documentaries on YouTube. Same thing, right?
I think there’s probably more to light than just a group of subatomic particles (photons) or energy waves. It appears that it plays a role in defining our universe.
As far as time, it doesn’t seem to exist in its own right – but we perceive it, and everything that exists, exists only within our own perceptions as far as we’re concerned. By definition, we can’t experience anything outside of ourselves. So, in that sense, time is as real as anything else.
The past is gone, the future isn’t here yet – and the present is simply a transition from one non-existence into another. It seems that time doesn’t exist by itself, but that it’s simply a property of our existence – a dimension.
The same might be said about space; it only has meaning when describing physical materials, but cannot be comprehended outside of that framework. We can imagine a finite area that lacks any matter, a perfect vacuum. That space, having limits, might constitute “space without substance.” However, there are two problems with this: Firstly, that space would have no meaning without the surrounding material, and secondly, it’s doubtful that there even is such a thing as an area without any substance in our universe.
When we perceive space, we do so in three dimensions. This was necessary for our survival, and that’s why our brains evolved in such a way. A creature that exists only in two dimensions would find it impossible to imagine a third dimension.
But there was never any such necessity for humans to perceive any more than two dimensions in time (past and future). It wasn’t necessary for our survival, so our brains are incapable of comprehending such things.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that other dimensions of time don’t exist. It’s also possible that, just like there is space-light, so too is there time-light. We can’t perceive it, because, as far as we’re concerned, there are only two dimensions to time; we can’t sense light in only two dimensions. If our minds were capable of sensing a third dimension in time, then time-light would illuminate a whole new plane of existence.
This time-light would regulate the speed of time.
Time is perceived to pass at widely varying rates. When we’re young, one hour seems like an eternity. By the time we’re old, even the years seem to go by in a snap. Imagine how time is perceived by a tortoise that’s centuries old. Imagine how a mayfly perceives it.
When we die, we’re freed of the shackles of time, and even a million years is nothing to us…
Or is it? Not if time-light has any say in the matter.
I recently spoke to a relative of mine. She’s 93 years old, and she’s very much at peace with the fact that death will come for her in the near future.
I asked her what she thinks about the next time around, and I pointed out that she will pop into existence some time in the future, that this is inevitable.
I explained to her, in a nutshell, the infinite cycle of universes, as theorized by Professor Roger Penrose. I pointed out that there might also be infinite parallel universes – and that there might be both infinite universes and Penrose cycles at the same time. In any event, the very fact that we exist proves that we CAN exists, and that we WILL exist again – even if it takes a trillion trillion cycles to make it happen. It’s only a matter of time.
I was shocked that she’d never thought of this. Doesn’t everybody?
But as I said, it’s only a matter of time until we pop into existence again… and let’s remember that not a single one of us is exactly the same person today as he was yesterday. Each day, when we wake up, we’re only approximations of what we were yesterday.
So whatever set of circumstances must align to create another “me,” they will occur, in some approximation, an infinite number of times. Of course, it’s questionable if any of these future individuals will remember his own past.
Let’s say a murderer suffers a severe case of amnesia, and he can’t remember anything from his previous life. He wakes up somewhere, and builds his life from scratch… learns everything anew, gets married, buys a house, has kids. And then one day, he’s informed that he committed a murder so many years ago. Do we hold this individual liable for the murder?
There’s more than one reason to punish a murderer, a need for justice, to protect the public from future violence, peace of mind for the victim’s survivors, a deterrent to others. But, aside from all that, is it the same person?
If you’re on your death bed, and the doctor tells you there’s one way to save your life, but the operation will erase ALL of your previous memories, and you’ll have to start life from scratch. All of the people you knew will be strangers to you, including your closest loved ones. Would you do it? How would your family feel about it? I’d venture to say that, given an alternative of certain death, almost everybody would undergo the operation; they see some sort of continuity in such an existence.
So yes, there certainly is life after death. But does it happen instantaneously, or is there a lapse? I think that in the Penrose scenario, it might be subject to the speed of time, as regulated by time-light.