Time and Nothingness

Many people in what we regard to be prehistory were knowledgeable of the atomic structure of the universe.  Symbols of atomic energy have been found the world over dating from what we regard as prehistory.  Also there are passages from the Vedas, for example, the most ancient sacred writings of Hinduism, that allude to beings with such understanding.  And in cultures such as the Celts, Gauls, Mayans, and others there were what we might term “initiates” who demonstrated their comprehension of atomic structure.

As late as the fifth century before our Common Era (CE), the Greek philosopher Leucippus spoke of the atom and the “corpuscular universe.”  So too did the fourth century BCE Greek philosopher Democritus, whose name is associated with the  first exposition of the atomic theory of matter according to which all matter is composed of single, indivisible atoms.  His theory was that the atoms, the space within which they move, and their motions within that space, are eternal.  This would mean that there is no point at which it can be said to have served as a “beginning.”

Both religion and science pursue the theory that if the fundamental “law” of the universe can be discerned, and the initial condition of the universe could be discovered, then all purpose for Creation would be known to man.  What is steadfastly ignored is the fact that neither time nor space function as a principle of  Creation: they are effects, and the fundamental “law” and initial condition they seek is to be found in the eternal now.  Because the potentiality for everything has always existed within the primal energies we think of as Source, and which religion insists upon personifying as “God,” it is only the  fundamental energy particle active as Source that could ever authoritatively announced “I Am.”

In other words, Creation’s energies could never have evolved ex nihilo, out of nothing. Energy can exist without manifesting as form, but energy cannot be generated out of a state of non-existence.  As Stephen Hawking has proposed, much to the dismay of cosmologists and religionists, there really could never have been a point “t=O” to mark a “beginning.” 

A “Big Bang” does not explain the beginning  of Creation: the only thing that theory can be said to demonstrate is that energy is creative.  Energy has to be active in some capacity if anything like a “big bang”  could be initiated; it simply could not explode unless there was activity present to fuel it.  Religionists, of course, will say that it was “god” who stirred up the whole mess.  But any pre-schooler has common sense enough to ask, “Then who created god?”

We are faced with the reality that is always up to each individual pattern of energy as to where it wants to begin to measure the timely circle experienced as Creation.  To define Creation in terms of a time when everything “began” is an attempt to impose limitation upon that which is without limits.  That has left science in the awkward position of never having been able to explain what it is that we experience as time.  Indeed, science and religion simply accept that time just emerged ex nihilo, out of nothing.  That idea got kicked in the head when Albert Einstein introduced to the world the theory of relativity.  The paradoxes of special relativity was that time can be measured at a different rate by two clocks in different situations.  A clock moving in outer space, as compared to a stationary one on Earth, will measure involvement with Creation  forces differently.  That little discovery changed forever man’s concept that time was something constant, unalterable, and observed identically everywhere in the universe.  The indistinct qualifications of what constitutes “time” therefore casts serious doubts on any timescale that religionists claim from “revealed wisdom,” and even clouds the timescale that cosmologists theorize in an attempt to deduce the exact “time” of the imagined “big bang.”

Maybe we should rethink our concept of time.  Age-old concepts of  “time” did not regard time as a linear measure as we have been conditioned to regard it, but thought of it as a broadly arked, ever-shifting energy flow in which we each reflect our relationship with quantum activity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: