A new theory of time connecting differentiated cum undifferentiated universe

It is not the composite material taking shapes but internal particles. It is not the country taking decision but the people. Similarly, when Essential time prescribed the timeline of creation, it is present in existential time form hence omnipresence. Omnipresence thing cannot be referenced to anything, so essential time exists without any change or motion. Due to this specific relation whatever attribute essential time has exists with existential time also. It is worth to restate some earlier points of physics with one more perspective. After all, what one sees today is the effect of that initial prescribed limit that can only be remembered in terms of starting of creation. Prior to that starting, creation would have been possible or impossible¹⁷ [Al-Ghazali, 2000, pp. 13-27].

This is supported by Richard Feynman 's thought that the universe that we see today is one of the various possible universes; that could have been formed due to quantum behaviors of particles. He proposed this situation in his theory of positron in exciting way [Feynman, 1949]. Based on Feynman's suggestion it was thought that universe came into existence from nothingness because those positron now called Virtual particles came into existence accidentally out of nothing and become non-existence at speed of light [Krauss, 2012]. There is much controversy and confusion about the term nothingness, as to what does actually nothingness is all about. However, it has been argued based on double-slit experiment related to quantum physics where particles decide every time which path they have to take [Hawkings, Mlodinow, 2010]. Due to such bizarre prediction Einstein with his colleagues objected with famous EPR paradox creating a conflict between Copenhagen interpretations of quantum world with classical world view [Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, 1935]. Moreover, as per latest model of theory of everything the so called M-theory, a combination of other physical theories predicts that there could be 10⁵⁰⁰ possible universes exist out there in space [Katrin et al., 2007]. Due to similarity of attributes between existential and essential time, such possibilities can also be attributed to essential time. In this case only two possibilities can exist before creation either it was possible or impossible.

For the first case where creation is possible, it does not require or force prior existence of matter to prescribe timeline. Rather it can be opposite that; essential time by very nature knows beforehand when to create that initial singularity¹⁸ in future and prescribe timeline. This possibility negates the idea of pre-eternal world forcing to conclude temporal creation. With possible temporal creation comes a Even though in philosophy creation has been categorized as possible, impossible and necessary. This distinction is purely based on metaphysical premises where for necessary creation attributed to necessity of God to create without exemption. Here, by singularity it is not intended the so called singularity of the Big Bang rather a starting point. It could be out of nothing to direct creation or from explosion. It does not matter how it happened rather indeed it happened. question that, whether limit prescribed by essential time to initiate creation was static or dynamic. Static defines a temporal creation in which accidentally everything came into existence from singularity leaving nothing left.

On the contrary, in dynamic creation initial process of 'generation' is still going on. It has been said that the attributes of essential and existential are same. The question can be asked how the time line of individual works. The only answer is through 'growth' and that is self-evident truth of nature. Every being lives a line of growth from beginning to end. Growth is a process continuously annihilating the necessary constituents. Biological process in human, ecology, ecosystem, solar system and galaxies all are constantly in growth and that is the nature of every being that's why nature is called principle of change. This process of growth governed by the timeline decides till when constituents be accepted. Growth does not progress by following the initial condition only but it should be fed continuously what is necessary. It can be said as a third most beautiful truth of nature. With same analogy, it is true for the initial singularity also.

Creation came into existence at one time in past does not mean that it is static, rather it is dynamic proposing continuous growth as per its very nature. Growth here means creation is being continuously fed by the existential time and space (one can say matter and form) to maintain the process of growth. This will progress till its timeline reaches end in some point of future. In second case where creation is impossible, it negates the temporal creation of existential space and time but essential time still persist even for no creation at all. As per the very nature of essential time, it knows there is no possibility of any creation.

At this junction, the propositions claimed by the theoretical construction of Time have been explained sufficiently from Philosophical, scientific and metaphysical grounds. Considering known methodology of science at least of saving the phenomena justify the philosophical framework of theory developed so far [Duhem, 1985]. Indeed there is no mathematics involved but mere absence of mathematical elegance cannot discard any physical truth that has been advocated and shown. However, the inconsistencies of scientific methods lies in depart from the causal narration of events [Athearn, 1994]. As claimed, we want to reduce causal explanation to a final cause which cannot be reduced further. Assuming such line of thought obviously demands one major question:

'What is the cause of essential time and how it is there before creation?'

With certainty, there exists a narrative explanation that physics cannot reach in its current form. In the domain of methodological gap, vacuum of mere explanation avoiding causal narration and pull of empirical evidence has simply avoided the whole ocean of philosophical reasoning that is capable to answer this startling concept of Essential Time. The following part of this research will reveal the mysteries that lie in ontology of Essential time through causal narration. However, that is a separate issue linked with developed framework which in no case halts the completeness of theory proposed in the paper. Present paper only tackled the second part of reality and that is 'what it is for' not the ontology of Essential time itself which is 'what it is'.

Conclusion

Maintaining the methodology of modem science it is proposed that current understanding of space and time is incapable to explain the working of universe. Existing hypothesis of time extracted from the observational data and philosophy of modern science does not represent the unity this universe shows. The internal differentiation of the universe is covered by undifferentiated uniformity all around. The modern concept of time and space does not reveal this uniformity and internal differentiation. To explain this bizarre nature of universe the new theory of Time has been proposed which contains two times - Existential time and Essential time. Existential space-time continuum cannot explain its own creation or the cause, which by theory and logic demands some other entity to explain that gap. Hence, that entity is essential time that exists in reality without any reference. Based on nature's observation, proposed hypothesis explained all the possible question of universe including start and end. However, next part of this research will deal with the ontological nature of Essential Time that is 'what it is' following the present explanation of 'what it is for'.

universe time essential space

References

1. Al-Ghazali. “The incoherence of the philosophers”, transl. by M.E. Marmura, in: Islamic translation series. London: Brigham Young University, 2000. 301 pp.

2. Al-Hajjaj M. “Book of zakat, Hadees 2208”, in: Sahih Muslim. Riyadh: Darussalam publishers, 2000, pp.15-138.

3. Anderson J.D. The fundamental of aerodynamics. New York: McGraw Hills, 2001. 912 pp.

4. Aristotle. “Categories”, in: Barnes, J. (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton university press, 1985, pp. 3-24.

5. Aristotle. “De Anima”, in: Barnes, J. (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton university press, 1985, pp. 641-692.

6. Aristotle. “Physics”, in: Barnes, J. (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton university press, 1985, pp. 315-446.

7. Athearn D. Scientific nihilism: on the loss and recovery of physical explanation. New York: State University of New York Press, 1994. 387 pp.

8. Berger, A. “Milankovitch Theory and climate”, Reviews of Geophysics, vol. 26, № 4, pp. 624-657.

9. Bourne C.A future for presentism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006. 255 pp.

10. Chandrasekhar S. “The maximum mass of ideal white dwarfs”, The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 74, pp. 81-82.

11. Chen Y.T. Space-time in relativity. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications & Distributors, 2003. 161 pp.

12. Connes A., Heller M., Shahn M., Roger P., Polkinghorne J., Andrew T On Space and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2008. 303 pp.

13. Dennis D. “The physics and metaphysics of time”, European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 103-119.

14. Duhem P.M.M. To save the phenomena: an essay on the idea of physical theory from Plato to Galileo. Oxford: University of Chicago Press, 1985. 153 pp.