Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Gordon975]

I propose as a topic for discussion that space is really a condition of time and represents the present within which everything exists as collections of atomic particles, and that the past and future exist either side of space.

Time has always existed and the present has to have a past and future component on either side.

I propose that the present is moving through time relative to the past and future and this dictates the existence of atomic partials and the forces that exist between them.

The concept that is proposed is based on certain observable facts and conclusions derived from them as follows:

There are three states of time they are past, present and future. Neither the past nor the future actually exist for the matter from which everything is made, the only existence for this is in the present and records that exist of a past are those of a past presence, and are no more in existence than anything in the future. Therefore the present time separates past and future and acts as a strict division between the future and past. Either side of the present there is a chaotic unvisitable past and future time. The present time therefore moves through time at the point where past and present meet. One conclusion might be that time is unable to pass around the present but must pass through it. If time could pass around the present time then what we observe as the now point in time would be scattered, fragmented and unpredictable.

If time cannot pass around the present time then one conclusion might be that it passes through it, this may account for the existence of all the atomic particles that make up the observable universe. Each fundamental particle may exist, as a weakness in the present time through which time is able to pass. Current theory and experimental physics suggest that no atomic particle can exceed the speed of light because its mass will, increase exponentially towards infinity as it approaches light speed. One possibility is that the weakness in the presence through which time is passing is stable with the movement of time through it as a speed equivalent to the speed of light, if the particle moves within the present then it absorbs more time from the direction moved in than that moved from, eventually as the speed approaches that of light the absorption of time from the direction moved in will move towards a point where the particle is unstable and its mass due to time absorption from the direction moved in increase, momentum and kinetic energy that a moving object acquires may be thought of as existing based on the same principle.

Electromagnetic waves exist only in the present time therefore they must exist between the past and the future. An electromagnetic wave therefore may potentially exist by moving the presence through which it passes slightly to the past and then to the future causing vibrations to the atomic particles it interacts with as the result of the displacement to the absorption of time by the particle. A particle that vibrates may conversely set up a displacement in the present time to and from the past and future and so create an electromagnetic wave.

If space can be established as being the now point in time between the past and future it is then possible to speculate about the existence of gravity, black holes, the apparent shortage of mass in the universe and the way in which stars orbiting the centre of galaxies do not obey the currently defined laws of physics.

[Teralek]

Interesting concept that got me thinking... The problem is this idea goes against Einstein relativity...

The past and the future "actually" exist "now". This as actually been proven. Time is relative, there is no such thing as an "exclusive present" to the whole Universe. The "present" of the Universe is "all the time"

There is an arrow of time, but this is an ever flowing one from past to future at every point in time, all the time!

And there is only one and only reason why there is an arrow of time from past to future... it's the second law of thermodynamics...

[Gordon975]

Teralek wrote:

Interesting concept that got me thinking... The problem is this idea goes against Einstein relativity...

The past and the future "actually" exist "now". This as actually been proven. Time is relative, there is no such thing as an "exclusive present" to the whole Universe. The "present" of the Universe is "all the time"

There is an arrow of time, but this is an ever flowing one from past to future at every point in time, all the time!

And there is only one and only reason why there is an arrow of time from past to future... it's the second law of thermodynamics… …

I accept that the relative time between moving bodies is different and moves at different speeds relative to each other this has been proved true by experimental observation and Einstein, a brilliant scientist, applied mathematics to the observed facts to come to his conclusions.

In this topic I am trying to explore a new way of interpreting the perceived way in which things exist based on the idea that space exists because it is the now point in time and the barrier between the past and the present.

In this model Particles exist within the present time as weaknesses through which time passes, the present time, a very special state of time, is the same everywhere in the perceive universe except for the points in it where a weakness allows for the passage of time through it, even at these points time moves at the same speed as in every other part of the universe because the same amount of time is always being absorbed, however this is not always true relative to other particles.

My proposal is that particles within space experience a passage of time and also mass because they have time passing through them and the relative passage of time between moving particles can be different and depend on the absorption of time resulting from the relative travel speeds between those particles.

If one particle is stationary and another moving away relative to it then its absorption of time towards the stationary particle is slower in that direction but greater in the direction in which it is travelling, therefore although total time absorption is constant the relative absorption between particles is not.

A conclusion within the model might be that the stationary particle would perceive time moving more slowly at the moving particle, because of the reduced time absorption apparent towards it from the moving one, time however would be perceived as the same for both particles relative to the present time within which they both exist.

In this model as a particle moves, its kinetic energy and the passage of time relative to other particles is dependent on the relative direction and speed of movement towards or away from each other.

[Teralek]

What can I say... This does not make a lot of sense...

If you accept relativity you must accept that there is no present Universal time.

Someone who lives in the future from your perspective, lives in the present from HIS perspective, and neither perspective is wrong. They are both right. Both live in their "present". There is no Now point in space. If you accept that the passage of time is different to moving bodies it becomes logical that there is no "Now special time", if times passes at different rates for different objects then their "now" time no longer coincides. But you seem to be unable to see this...

I believe it's already more or less established that time and space are indistinguishable and cannot be separated from each other like you are doing.

There is a now present for you that from YOUR perspective is the same for all Universe. But someone living in Andromeda, their NOW time, is not the same as yours.

Time is just a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, without them time does not exist

[Gordon975]

Teralek wrote:

What can I say... This does not make a lot of sense...

If you accept relativity you must accept that there is no present Universal time.

Someone who lives in the future from your perspective, lives in the present from HIS perspective, and neither perspective is wrong. They are both right. Both live in their "present". There is no Now point in space. If you accept that the passage of time is different to moving bodies it becomes logical that there is no "Now special time", if times passes at different rates for different objects then their "now" time no longer coincides. But you seem to be unable to see this...

I believe it's already more or less established that time and space are indistinguishable and cannot be separated from each other like you are doing.

There is a now present for you that from YOUR perspective is the same for all Universe. But someone living in Andromeda, their NOW time, is not the same as yours.

Time is just a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, without them time does not exist

Space and time are as part of this model indeed indistinguishable. The concept of the now point in time in this proposal is only applied to space and not to matter within space.

Matter, however dense, is made of various types of particle suspended in space, the matter however fast it moves has space passing through it and that space is, as this model defines the now point in time and does not move with the particles of which the matter is made. Indeed time for this model cannot move and has no distance associated with it. The concept of a now point for matter is the same for each particle but not perceived the same in terms of other particles moving relative to it.

If a particle moves towards a stationary one then the stationary one would perceive the time of the moving particle as passing faster than its own, however if the moving particle stops then both times would be perceived to then run at the same speed.

Distance in space is only measurable between particles, in time there is no physical measure of distance and as in my proposal Space is the now point in time although we may stand on a rock and measure the distance to another one the movement of a rock within space is impossible unless the relative rate at which time passes is adjusted to allow for relative movement. In the idea that is proposed the passage of time as perceived by one particle of another is determined by their passage through the present relative to each other. Each particle exists in space within the present time. The actual rate at which each perceives the others time to pass is determined by velocity and direction travelled through space.

The present time for someone living in the Andromeda galaxy is exactly the same in terms of the space that it exists in as it is here, therefore the speed at which time would pass within the environment of Andromeda would be the same however the perceived speed and direction with which it passes for the particles that make up the Andomeda galaxy would depend on the relative movement between them and us. Of course our perception of the Andromeda galaxy is of its present time 2.5 million years ago.

The current laws of thermodynamics do give good answers to the questions that we need to solve, but this does not necessarily mean that the right results are coming from or for the correctly interpreted reason.

[Bohm2]

The problem is this idea goes against Einstein relativity...The past and the future "actually" exist "now". This as actually been proven.

The "proof" part is inaccurate. Although, the block model is the favoured interpretation, a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of SR is another possibility and has not been conclusively ruled out.

[Present awareness]

Space may be defined as an emptiness, something which is not there. Since space is not there, it does not exist. The non-existence of empty space allows room for the existence of matter. However, space and matter are two sides of the same coin, the existence of matter is dependent on the non-existence of space, they may not be separated.

The still point of time is now. Now does not arrive, nor does it depart, it is always here, it is always "NOW". It is now, everywhere in the universe, however, your now and my now are separated by space. If you are on the other side of the Earth, my now is day, while your now is night. The illusion of time is created when the present is used to reflect on memory of different forms which we call past, or dreaming of different forms that we call future. Whether remembering or dreaming, at no point in this activity do we leave the present moment.

[Gordon975]

Bohm2 wrote:

The "proof" part is inaccurate. Although, the block model is the favoured interpretation, a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of SR is another possibility and has not been conclusively ruled out.

Teralek wrote:

What can I say... This does not make a lot of sense...

Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit, and relativity of simultaneity.

This topic is not trying to contradict any of the laws of Special relativity, given their basis in the language of advanced mathematical analysis, this author acknowledges themselves in no way qualified to do so, however the laws of special relativity state pure and proven facts about the physical world by which all things exist but not the reasons for their existence, that is the thing that this topic is trying to explore. And to do it by suggesting that everything that exists is the result of time.

If the universe existed and none of the objects or particles in it moved and time ran normally the present would be common to everything and the past present and future could exist as already described. None of the laws in special relativity would need to apply.

If the universe existed as it really does and all of the objects or particles in it moved and time ran normally as this topic argues it must, for anything to exist, then the laws of special relativity apply and the rate of movement of present time for a moving object is not the same rate movement of present as one moving relative to it, also the dimension of any object that moves reduces in its direction of travel. If this author has correctly interpreted the laws of special relativity, then an object moving at the speed of light speed would have zero length, always exist in the same presence and have an infinite mass. Each particle that exists only has a common presence or now time when moving at the same speed and in the same direction in space.

This author argues that if a time slice were taken of the moving universe at any single instant then that universe would appear the same as the stationary one and all now points in time would be the same present time, no moving objects would be effected by length change and any object moving at light speed would appear normal relative to all others.

It is possible to deduce, perhaps obviously, from this argument that everything that Special relativity infers is based on time not speed or mass and that it is the movement between instances of an objects present time that result in the effects that the standard model of relativity predicts for, a moving object.

The argument being proposed in this topic is that space is the now point in time and that it is true for moving and stationary objects even though the rate at which time passes can change dependant on the relative velocities between them. It also follows from this argument that anything moving in space is moving through a special state of time which is the divide between past and future but as there is no distance in time the laws of special relativity apply, all objects moving in space are moving in a medium, space, a particular state of time, where dimension, in the form of distance does not exist.

Present awareness wrote:

Space may be defined as an emptiness, something which is not there. Since space is not there, it does not exist. The non-existence of empty space allows room for the existence of matter. However, space and matter are two sides of the same coin, the existence of matter is dependent on the non-existence of space, they may not be separated. The still point of time is now. Now does not arrive, nor does it depart, it is always here, it is always "NOW". It is now, everywhere in the universe, however, your now and my now are separated by space. If you are on the other side of the Earth, my now is day, while your now is night. The illusion of time is created when the present is used to reflect on memory of different forms which we call past, or dreaming of different forms that we call future. Whether remembering or dreaming, at no point in this activity do we leave the present moment.

A living creature needs to interpret the environment in which it lives to maximise the success of their species. The information in our immediate environment that is available to an individual of that species is all that it has to achieve that success, if the information is incomplete and perhaps a conclusion wrong but life still prospers better as a result then it is a good valid interpretation and for the species and for the individual creature a good one.

[Present awareness]

Most living creatures have the ability to interpret the environment through their five senses, responding to whatever the present moment brings.

Humans have the ability to think abstractly, giving us the ability to understand concepts like language, mathematics, space and time. These concepts are very useful, giving us the ability to communicate ideas, calculate distances, develope tools and technology. A deer in the forest survives quite nicely , simply by responding to the immediate environment. The only time a deer needs is now, and the only space a deer needs is here.

[Atreyu]

Gordon, your post makes me sad because I can see by reading it that you get the gist of the modern theory of space-time, but obviously do not understand it completely. Once you do, you'll be able to think about the topic coherently, rather than so abstractly.

As Teralek said, all moments of time exist concurrently and eternally, and what we all "now" (or "reality") is merely the one particular moment of time which we can perceive with our senses, which is always what we call "the present". But all the other points (moments) of time also exist, only they cannot be realized until our awareness crosses paths with them. So our entire three-dimensional space ("now") is but one of many points of the higher dimensions of space (which we call "time"), just as you suggested.

So your intuition is quite correct. If we reduce our three-dimensional Universe to a mere point, and then imagine that point travelling through three dimensions of space, like a speck of dust floating through the air, we will have a very good model of the real Universe. As the point crosses other points in its travel, things will change, and the beings existing within that point will call that change "time". They will say that things are changing because "time passes", but actually things are changing because their entire three dimensional world is moving outside of itself and crossing points of space outside of its boundaries, i.e. their three dimensional world is moving within a greater space containing four or more dimensions. This movement changes the nature of the point, and the beings within it will call that change "phenomenon" (phenomenon which occur over time).

Consider my above example of a point moving through space. Let us suppose that the point passes through a space of red. For the beings existing within it, their "world" will become red. Then let us suppose that the point later begins passing through a space which is blue. The beings within it will say that their world has now become blue. Now let us suppose that our point passes through all the various colors of the spectrum, each lasting for a certain time based on the volume of the space which is of one particular color, and the direction and velocity of our point. Will not the beings existing within that point say that their "Universe" periodically changes from one color to another? Of course they will, and no doubt if they are clever beings they will be able to create a calendar and a clock based on their knowledge of how often and for how long each color predominates in their world. But only the very most clever among them might suppose that all of the colors actually exist all the time, and that the real truth is that the present state (color) of their Universe is merely the particular point that their Universe happens to be crossing at that particular moment. The vast majority of them will certainly take only the present color of their Universe as "real", as happening "now", while all of the other colors will certainly be regarded as the past or the future. If their Universe is on a red point, after just passing a blue one, and on its way to crossing a yellow one, they will say that red is "now" or the "present", but that the world was blue and soon will become yellow. Only the most flexible thinkers among them will be able to surmise that actually their Universe is blue, red, and yellow, and that the only reason it is taken to be absolutely red (in the moment) is because of the limitations of their perceptions, which are always confined to what is taking place within the point.

Now apply this analogy to our Universe and perhaps you will understand how our three-dimensional space is but one point in the higher dimensions of space beyond the first three, which we always perceive and cognize as "now". "Time" is the peculiar way that we experience the higher dimensions of space as our three-dimensional space moves within them....

[Gordon975]

Atreyu wrote:

Gordon, your post makes me sad because I can see by reading it that you get the gist of the modern theory of space-time, but obviously do not understand it completely. Once you do, you'll be able to think about the topic coherently, rather than so abstractly.

I'm not sure that what this topic is suggesting has been understood.

The suggestion in this topic is not that Space is at the now point in time but is the now point in time.

Time has no physical dimension to limit its scale, and this would appear to be very much the case with what we perceive as space.

The proposition that space is the now time is one that is trying to explain why space should exist and in fact has to exist for there to be time, and exists because time exists.

If we can think of time as consisting of past present and future then we can imagine there to be an infinite past and infinite future, in between these two there is a zero point and my suggestion is that this is what we comprehend as space and that the view we have of other areas of the universe is through space, the zero point in time.

When we look at space we look at something that is empty but in reality is the point between an infinite past and an infinite future.

In the model I propose, around each point in space there is a future and a past they exist in the same dimension but at different times.

If an object is moving relative to another stationary one then it will pass through more instances of the present time than the stationary one hence time for that object will run at a different rate to one that is stationary. An observer on the stationary objects would see clocks on the moving one move at a different rate. When the moving object stops although the amounts of time passed would be apparently different they would still be in the same present time.

The question that this topic is trying to ask and in someway explain is what is space, why does it exist and why does it have to exist and proposes that the answer to this question is that the space external to and internal to all material things is a state of time.

The current scientific beliefs about time :

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd ... O_Q_f1WgQI

The following video gives an impression of how the scientific community currently imagines space to exist.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail ... 8xJJYjOH3k

[Atreyu]

Gordon, I'm watching that first video right now, and it seems to be corroborating everything I said. Perhaps I'm not understanding what your driving at.

The question that this topic is trying to ask and in someway explain is what is space, why does it exist and why does it have to exist and proposes that the answer to this question is that the space external to and internal to all material things is a state of time.

Well, I won't venture to try and explain what Space is, but the reason it exists is because that is our how psychic apparatus makes sense of the world around it. We think and perceive the world in terms of space and time. That's just how our psyche works.

And the idea behind the space-time model is that time is the peculiar way that we perceive the dimensions of space beyond the first three which we can perceive directly with our five senses. We perceive and cognize time (things happening) because those three dimensions of space which we can perceive directly are moving relative to those higher dimensions of space which we cannot perceive directly. As a point moves across a line, the point will change, i.e. things will happen, there will be time. If the point stops moving, the point will remain the same as it always was, i.e. nothing will happen, there will be no time. We perceive time because our entire three-dimensional world is moving relative to higher dimensions of space.

What about this do you not understand or agree with?

[takso]

Everything does exist at the same time under present-dynamism only. The projectile movement of time as often experienced by our mind consciousness is purely due to relativity as well as the varying vibrational frequencies in play. As a result, we tend to perceive things a little bit linearly, thus creating the delusion of past, present and future movement of time. The conventional time that we involve ourselves with every day is a subjective and a relative time. This means the time orientation is dependent on the observer (i.e. the subject’s mind) to provide the valuation on the other side of the object or matter. As a consequence, the time conclusion varies among different observers or minds.

In fact, Albert Einstein has given out an interpretation of spacetime that is actually the endless evolving frequency cum becoming process in Mother Nature. We could liken the frequency to space and the becoming process to time because time is actually a dimension (indicator) for the becoming process and space is merely an expression for energy in play as per frequency (i.e. the number of occurrences or observations within a given time period or statistical category).

Present-dynamism = frequency x becoming (space x time)

Once again, time would always arise at the present state of condition. There is no backward or forward movement of time but just a regenerating of occurrences all the time at a common pace of spacetime or present-dynamism. This means in the twinkling of an eye, all events or phenomena as observed by our mind consciousness would fluctuate and renew simultaneously and continuously. Just like the gravity effects on earth for all different masses are the same (acceleration value, g = 9.80 m/s2) even though the rock strikes the ground before the feather per se. However, the common pace of spacetime or present-dynamism is unconjecturable and it is mainly due to its nature of beginning-less and end-less.

For example, despite the vast differences in the cultural development, the time zone and the locality, a Bushman in Africa and a modern businessman in America are both living concurrently in the 21st century under a common pace of spacetime or present-dynamism. Literally, we could not discriminate or differentiate them by saying that the Bushman is from the past time and the modern businessman is a person living in the future time. The distinguishing factor among them and their respective surroundings is merely their variable vibrational frequencies.

In fact, the circumstances of duality or multiplicity as observed by our mind consciousness would be an obvious indication of all fluctuating vibrational frequencies arising in the cosmos. This is because everything in the material Universe is made up of energy. Atoms and molecules are made up of energy. Our bodies, our clothes, our cars, our houses are all made up of energy but what makes them different is their vibration. Energy is always vibrating at a different frequency under the influence of conditional phenomena. Everything has its own vibrational frequency – our thoughts, our feelings, the rock, the table, the car, the animal, the plant, the tree, etc. Even colours are merely expressions of certain vibrational frequencies. In addition, the fluctuating vibrational frequencies amongst different subjects and matters would bring about variances in terms of the relative timeline. Under the common pace of spacetime or present-dynamism, a higher vibrational frequency would yield a slower becoming process and vice versa.

Present-dynamism (constant) = frequency (space) x becoming (time)

The principle-in-effect: -

When the vibrational frequency accelerating, the becoming process decelerates, When the vibrational frequency decelerating, the becoming process accelerates.


By nature, everything is a matrix of everything. If we were to examine into nature intently, our mind would discover that everything is interconnected and balanced under the universal laws of conservation. Basically, all the workings of the universal scientific laws and equations would fall within the principle of absence, balance and constant. For instance,

E = mc2 or E - mc2 = 0 or mc2 - E = 0
A = B or A - B = 0 or B - A = 0

The circumstances of duality or multiplicity in all things would always exist in the dependent nature. Conventionally, there is a beginning and an ending of all things or matters i.e. when there is a rising, there will be a falling or vice versa. The complementary but opposing forces would interact to form a whole greater than either separate part; thus bringing forth a dynamic system existing in harmony. In other words, there’s no two ways about it i.e. one factor is always being balanced off with another factor, without exception. This conclusion would bring us to an understanding that nature is functioning in a feature that is constant – a situation that does not change i.e. the characteristic of an inherent existence. Therefore, we could mention that nature is a system that is universal i.e. it is inherent existing and dependent arising concurrently.

When an object is set under an accelerating motion (an escalating vibrational frequency), the becoming process of the object would be stretched as compared with a relative object that is set under a constant or a decelerating motion. In other words, the becoming process of the object has been slowed down comparatively and not the time that has been dilated or slowed down. Time would only assume the expression that the becoming process has slowed down and not the other way round. Literally, the slowing down of the becoming process would mean the slowing down of the aging process for a sentient being. This is the correct understanding behind the thought experiment of twin paradox which concerns a twin who flies off in a spaceship traveling near the speed of light and returns to discover that his or her twin sibling has aged much more. Similarly, a physically injured being would need to take a prolonged resting under serene surroundings in order to speed up the healing process (becoming process) via decelerating the vibrational frequencies of the injured body and the corresponding surroundings.

[Gordon975]

The You Tube hosted videos in this author's last post have Graphics and sentiments worthy of Star Trek, which comprises a small amount of plausible science but also a lot of incredible but entertaining fiction. The good thing about Star Trek is that deep down the audience knows it is fiction; the bad thing about the videos is that the audience believe the facts in them to be proven and true.

Many videos alluding to the understanding of time would hint at the notion that as something moves relative to something else it some how moves in time and away from the current present, and to another one, but this is just not true. For instance setting of from a stationary origin to go to a stationary destination, if something were to travel for a thousand light years at the speed of light it would set of from an origin at the same time as the clock at its destination. It would arrive at its destination a thousand years later, at its origin a thousand years would have passed, time for the thing that travelled would not have moved, time itself would have stopped moving for the thousand years for which it travelled, but the present would still be the same one as at the origin from whence it came. Both origin and destination would have experience a thousand years.

The existence of Intellect can result in the following questions: How does everything exist? Why does every thing exist? How do I exist? Why do I exist?

This topic is part of the how does everything exist collection of ideas that from the reaction so far from those viewing the concept that space is really just a version of time would appear to be very specific to this author and perhaps not one shared by other intellects interested in solving the question of how everything exists and what it is made of.

Science appears unable to define what the collection of atomic particles that everything is created from actually is or why the forces between them exist, my conclusion, and it seems strange to this author as much as perhaps to others that encounter the idea is that everything is the result of time and its relationship with the now, zero position or present state of it.

According to the current generally accepted opinion in physics the universe was created as the result of a big bang and some sort of inflation into or perhaps to create space, if any one looks at this proposal with a seriously sceptical mind it appears almost the pronouncement of a religion and although based on observation and mind boggling mathematics it is certainly more speculation than hard fact. The existence of everything in over a billion galaxies each containing billions of stars is, according to the big bang theory supposed to have happened just by chance 13.8 billion years ago, created everything from nothing and then distributed it quite equally around the universe, this idea is as much based on unprovable speculation and belief as it is on hard facts and mathematics.

The current interpretations of the behaviour of space, time and particles are based on Special Relativity, Quantum Physics, Newtonian physics; String theory and a few other loosely related ideas. Most of the theories about how things work along with their creators, if they have produce reliable provable results are enshrined in the halls of scientific fame and are treated as law to be learned and adhered to, to question them is potentially a career threatening course to take. The problem with all the various laws of physics dealing with particles, time, space, gravity and everything, is that they cannot be linked to form one provable system.

In this topic I am trying to discuss and argue for a possible new interpretation of how space exists and from there perhaps move the argument about the creation and existence of everything forward to a more credible although possibly still difficult thing to comprehend, both in terms of why and how.

[Atreyu]

In this topic I am trying to discuss and argue for a possible new interpretation of how space exists and from there perhaps move the argument about the creation and existence of everything forward to a more credible although possibly still difficult thing to comprehend, both in terms of why and how.

Well, the first thing you must understand is that space is a subjective phenomenon, and that it probably does not actually exist in the real world. Space is how our mind differentiates between objects. Without it, everything would be in the same place and we couldn't identify anything. To be able to see a desk and a chair, and then to sit in the chair, requires a conception of space. And all of this applies to time as well. Time is the way our mind differentiates between phenomena. Otherwise, everything would be happening simultaneously and we could not make sense of anything. So space is the way our minds deal with objects, and time is the way our minds deal with phenomena, and there is little reason to think that either is a real objective property of the world.

So your question properly lies in the realm of psychology, not physics or cosmology. You are pondering a question about our psychology, about how and why our minds work they way they do (time and space). If you try and consider the question from an "objective" perspective you will only lose your way....