Abstract
This paper argues that time does not exist as an absolute concept. To do this, it draws on Derrida’s critique of the metaphysics of presence, Einstein and Rovelli’s contributions to physics and also Vedic tradition. Taking a transdisciplinary approach enables an argument against absolute time from multiple, sometimes differing, perspectives. The paper then argues time is like a network- the future already exists, it is present already in the universe. After this, reference is made to how this argument relates to the literature, particularly Inayatullah and Sardar. While the literature may offer a negotiated and relative view of time, it does not necessarily portray it as a network and futures as already existing. To end, the paper suggests that this view does not make Futures Studies irrelevant, instead it provides a new relational framework to view time and temporalities. Overall, a conception of time is a network is suggested and the paper suggests lessons can be taken through a review of some key traditions of thinking.
‘Time is out of joint’ William Shakespeare’s Hamlet Act 1 Scene 5
The above quote emerges from the first act of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet (Shakespeare 1599-1601). The titular student and prince learns that Claudius, the King of Denmark and his uncle, killed his father. The ghost haunts Hamlet throughout, literally and figuratively. Hamlet is driven mad by this revelation or at the very least he feigns madness to gain revenge. The past drives Hamlet into madness in the present and the prospect of killing Claudius in the future drives his actions forward. For example, he contemplates suicide in the famous ‘to be or not to be’ speech (Act 3, Scene 1) and accidentally kills Polonius, father of his love-interest Ophelia (Act 3, Scene 4). For Hamlet ‘time is out of joint’ it does not make sense any more as a concept anymore, the past, present and future can no longer be distinguished from each other because ‘something is rotten in the state of Denmark’ (Act 1, Scene 4) and the past, present and future are directly affecting each other. The future act of killing Claudius drives the action forward in the play, but the ghost and the revelation emerges from the past. Meanwhile, in the present Hamlet is slowly losing his mind, nothing makes sense anymore. The play ends in tragedy with a duel and poisonings, both Hamlet and Claudius die among other characters. But the point futurists can take from Shakespeare’s work is simple: ‘time is out of joint’, the future and time more generally no longer make sense as a concept. In this paper, I hope to demonstrate regardless of the paradigm one chooses- scientific, postmodern or religious- absolute time does not exist. The past, present and future are relational and networked, there is not a single clock ticking across space and there is not on earth either. Instead, the universe is composed of different events which are connected together. The past is influenced by the future, as is the present. This forces us to reconsider what exactly is the ‘future’ in Futures Studies? Concepts like Causal Layered Analysis (e.g., Inayatullah 2005) and Postnormal times (e.g., Sardar 2010) have shown us that time is not simple and linear and also that it is negotiated and relative. Yet, these authors have still have not made the admission- The future in Futures Studies already exists out there in the universe, as the universe is a network of temporalities. Equally, the past and present are part of this network because of this. I will engage with these works later and I will show what I mean when I say time is relative and relational. But I will also ask, if futures already exist, then what is the futurist to do?
Methodology
This paper takes a transdisciplinary approach combining physics with the philosophical critique of Jacques Derrida and the Hindu orthodoxy of Vedanta. The decision to use multiple disciplines in tandem was taken to show that one can take very different worldviews, but still come to the same conclusion that absolute time does not exist. The choice of physics, including relativity and quantum mechanics, was due to them being major discoveries of the twentieth century. They have revolutionized our understanding of time, but this has not reached disciplines like Futures Studies (the same could be said of disciplines that study the past like History). Derrida was chosen as while his influence is felt in Causal Layered Analysis, his specific critique of the metaphysics of presence has not been taken into consideration. Vedic thought was chosen to highlight non-Western modes of thinking. I do not see the use of physics, poststructuralism and Vedanta contradicting each other. Nicolescu (2006) describes the world as composed of many layers. So in this instance one layer might be to do with physics and another with postructuralism. These are connected by the included middle, a zone where contradictions are possible. With this transdisciplinary ontology, it is possible to conceptualise a pluralistic universe in which multiple disciplines can both provide correct answers. My final comment on methodology is that the arguments for this paper were gathered through a review of the literature. Especial attention was paid to major thinkers like Einstein, Rovelli and Derrida and major texts like the Upanishads. My choice for doing this was pragmatic, I wanted to show that our understanding of time has been altered by some of the major intellectual figures of recent, contemporary scholarship and in the case of Vedanta, important religious belief. In other words, my argument is not niche, but has substantial weight behind it (if one considers the chosen scholars as important thinkers). I will now move on to discuss the arguments for suggesting time does not exist in the normal way.
Derrida and the End of Metaphysics of Presence
My examples for discussing the end of time draw from poststructuralism (particularly Derrida), physics and Vedanta. I will start with the former. Inayatullah describes Causal Layered Analysis (1998) as a postmodern method, thus I am surprised to find that he has not considered Derrida’s critique of the metaphysics of presence in his work. The metaphysics of presence can be summed up as presuming the present is more important than the past or future. In Of Grammatology (Derrida 1967a) this is done through discussion of speech and writing. Logocentrism is the prioritization of speech over writing. Speech, historically, had been seen as more important than writing because it summoned meaning in the instant, whereas text recalls a moment rather than the present moment. By showing that speech, equally to writing, does not summon the immediate moment due to the interplay of language, Derrida shows that the emphasis of philosophy on the present moment is not only incorrect but also impossible. To explain this, I draw on Derrida (1967b). This suggests consciousness is never in the present moment due to retention and protention, the mind is never fully focused on the past, present or future, it is neither present in one or the other- it is temporally dispersed. Time can therefore be seen as irrelevant; the past, present and future intersect with each other, neither one is fully there in the moment.
I now want to return to my discussion of Hamlet, which Derrida takes up in Spectres of Marx (1994). This will help us elaborate on the points made above and allow us to ask why ghosts unsettle the concept of time. Derrida suggests Hamlet is revealing ‘Time is off its hinges, time is off course, beside itself, disadjusted’ (Derrida 1994, 20) when he says ‘time is out of joint’. But surely a ghost only emerges from the past and into the present? How does a ghost also disjoint the future into this collapsing of time. Derrida (1994, 2) writes: ‘everything begins by the apparition of a specter. More precisely by the waiting for this apparition. The anticipation is at once impatient, anxious, and fascinated: this, the thing (“this thing”) will end up coming.’
In simpler language, a person always waits for the coming of the ghost. It may emerge from the past, but one is always anticipating its future appearance. Throughout Spectres of Marx, the ghost of Hamlet’s father is not the only spirit, Marxism is cited as an example of a ghost that haunts Europe, yet it was never fully realized due to totalitarianism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite this, the remnants of Marxism will continue to haunt us through its legacy (e.g., North Korea and China, plus left-wing politics more broadly). The spirit of Marxism will help determine the future. While this was written in 1994, just a few years after the ‘end’ of Communism, Marx and his legacy will not disappear over night, as shown by the fact he is still used in scholarly discussion.
If Derrida proved the present does not exis as an absolute and that it is always affected by the past and the future, we can also use his ideas to prevent an alternate picture of time. In Of Grammatology (1967a), Derrida uses the idea of Différance. This suggests that because words are related to each other they are never fully present or absent. So ‘dog’ will always have the presence of ‘bark’ effecting it, whereas ‘dog’ might be partially absent in the word ‘bone’ due to its relationship with it. If words are never fully present or absent and form a network, we could say the same of time. I will elaborate on this in my discussion of physics, but I will begin the discussion here. A ‘time’ or ‘event’ could be seen as relating to other times and other moments. Thus one present-event is affected by another present-event, but to the original present that time might be the past or present. Because an event is never fully locatable or present, the presence/absence of other events generate the illusion of time. One moment may be affected by the absent past, whereas the present future might also be affecting the moment. The present has traces of the past and the future, time is a dynamic interplay of these (Derrida 1967a). The world is a network of events or moments which generate the appearance of time due to the dynamics of different temporal ‘locations’. Time does not exist as independent absolute concept.
Einstein, Rovelli and Physics
My first attack on the idea of time emerged from postructuralism and postmodernism, now I want to move to a completely different topic area to prove that the idea of time does not stand scrutiny. My next move is to suggest that Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity has the same effect as Derrida, making us conceive time as a network rather than something that is present. Einstein (1916) suggests gravity warps space-time, as such time is affected by the mass of different objects. He writes (Einstein 1916, 94)’the “readings” which are observed simultaneously on adjacent clocks (in space) differ from each other by an indefinitely small amount’. If we have a clock under sea level and a clock on a mountain time would pass differently on them. There is not a single time due to the presence of gravity. Adjacent clocks, as mentioned by Einstein, would differ slightly due differences in the curvature of space-time. Time therefore can be conceived as a network, the future does not exist, it is simply another part of space-time affected by mass.
I now want to discuss Quantum Loop Gravity, an attempt to unify General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics concerns the smallest scale of the universe- particles and atoms. Rovelli (2014, 2018, 2020) describes the universe as made of discrete loops which are connected to each other. These loops make up space, they are not part of it. Furthermore, they are gravitational. Time and space arise as approximations of interactions going on at the more fundamental level of the loops. In simpler terms, time explains the interactions going on the smallest scale possible of the universe. Because absolute time is not fundamental to the universe (because it is made of gravity), we can say that in Quantum Loop Gravity time does not exist as an absolute. An admission is required here, Rovelli (2018) goes on to say that thermodynamics (the study of heat and energy) is the only evidence we have of time. This is mainly due to entropy, the idea that everything gets more complex as ‘time’ goes on and cannot be reversed. This could support the idea of ‘time’ existing, but it is worth highlighting this is only on larger scales than the loop, it is not a fundamental property of the universe, there is no ‘big clock’.
If the universe is made up of gravitational loops, then what can be said about the universe as a whole? One theory developed by Rovelli is Relational Quantum Mechanics (Rovelli 1996). This states that every system is dependent on an observer, without one it would not exist. An observer does not have to be a human or another consciousness, rather it has to be another object. Reality in this way can be conceived as sets of systems or to use my term ‘networks’ which observe each other. A point from Rovelli worth remembering is that every observer’s experience of a system is different. It is relative to the observer. This helps us to consider Einstein’s general relativity alongside Relational Quantum Mechanics, one’s position affects a state of a system. Therefore, like above, we can consider space and time to be ‘networked’, these properties will not be the same for every observer. This helps us to reconsider time once again- it cannot be conceived as an absolute variable. It depends on the observer and their ‘position’ in a network.
Time in Vedanta
Vedanta traditions can also help us see how ‘time is out of joint’ and relational. Vedanta refers to an accepted Hindu tradition, one of the main orthodoxies. It can offer us numerous insights into time. Firstly, it distinguishes between the timeless, eternal aspects of the world and the temporal, changing qualities of it. The Ashtavakra Gita states ‘The self--which is absolute, effortless, timeless, immaculate-- is without limits and at no distance from you. You are forever It.’ (Marshall 2010, 18.5) and ‘you are unconditioned, changeless, formless. You are solid, unfathomable, cool. Desire nothing. You are Consciousness.’ (Marshall 2010, 1.17). These quotes highlight how the self or atman is timeless. However, it is not just the atman that is timeless- OM- the universe is as well. The Mandukya Upanishad (Krishnananda 1996, 1) states: ‘OM! This Imperishable Word is the whole of this visible universe. Its explanation is as follows: What has become, what is becoming, what will become – verily, all of this is OM. And what is beyond these three states of the world of time – that too, verily, is OM.’
OM refers to the divine creation regardless of its temporality. Past, present and future are all connected by OM, as is everything beyond time as well. OM pervades everything. However, despite time not being relevant for the Atman and Om we also need to consider the temporality of the world of experience that is lived in by humans. The Upanishads provide evidence that Vedanta sees the earthly as transient. They (Paramananda 2017, 28; 37) state ‘I know that (earthly) treasure is transitory, for the eternal can never be attained by things which are non-eternal’ (p. 37) and ‘like grain the mortal decays and like grain again springs up’ (p. 28). The last quote illustrates the timeless atman that ‘springs up’, but also the ephemerality of earthly life. Time in Vedanta is thus split between the timeless and the temporal.
Still, despite the above, the relativity of the observer is critical in perceiving time. The Upanishads (Paramananda 2017, 44) state the following: ‘Know the Atman (Self) as the lord of the chariot, and the body as the chariot. Know the intellect to be the driver and mind the reins. The senses are called the horses; the sense objects are the roads; when the Atman is united with body, senses, and mind.’
There are two things to take from this quote. Firstly, that the different constituents of our experience, the self, body and senses are interconnected. They all form part of the chariot being driven. Secondly, the intellect is ‘the driver and mind the reins’, they guide our earthly experience of time. The next quote puts this in the context of time (Paramananda 2017, 53): ‘As rain water, (falling) on the mountain top, runs down over the rocks on all sides, similarly he who sees difference (between visible forms) runs after them in various directions.’
The ‘difference’ is relative to the observer as one ‘runs after them in various directions.’ Time is especially relative as ‘rain water, runs down over the rocks on all sides.’ Suggesting the theme of change. Vedanta therefore offers another window into time and temporality. The Atman and Om are seen as timeless, past, present and future and eternal. Time is relative, with the intellect and mind driving our understanding of it. Furthermore, our experience of time is decided by the parts of the chariot, it is relational.
Futures Literature: Causal Layered Analysis and Postnormal Times
I have demonstrated through Derrida, physics and Vedanta that we cannot conceive of time as existing in the common sense way we usually take it to exist. I now want to move on the Futures literature to illustrate a point. While much work has been done to complexify the notion of time- through layering it or describing how time is accelerating. There is still the suggestion that time is absolute. In simple language, the past is before the present, the present before the future. The future exists as something coming rather than as a point in a network of temporalities. I will now demonstrate how Causal Layered Analysis and the concept of Postnormal Times do allow us to understand the intricacy of ‘time’, but also that they still not have considered the full implications of modern physics and all of postmodernism. After this, I will review how time is also explained in some of the other Futures literature.
As I mentioned above, it is surprising to find that Inayatullah has not considered the full impact of Derrida’s critique of the metaphysics of presence because his work is inspired by poststructuralism. Inayatullah (2005) describes four layers of that one can move across. The first layer is litany which represents quantitative trends. It focuses on ambient feeling and media serving as an entrypoint for analysis, while also looking at how the complex is reduced to the simple. The second layer is social causes (i.e., the effect of social policies and trends). The third layer is discourse/worldview which supports the social layer. For example, ideological rhetoric might support a particular policy that affects society. The fourth layer is metaphor/myth, the archetypes and ideas that underpin consciousness and therefore also action in the world. Absolute time could potentially be seen as a layer. While this idea of causality and therefore time has implications for our understanding of time, mainly through providing a multi-layered framework, it still believes the future is something to come, something distinct from the past and present. Most importantly, it does not see time as a network of temporalities and events. Inayatullah (2005, 815) writes ‘causal layered analysis is concerned less with predicting a particular future and more with opening up the present and past to create alternative futures.’ Whereas, in my model, time is seen as being multiple temporalities, in which the ‘future’ is already out there because time plays differently from location to location in a network.
There are some additional points that need to be made regarding Causal Layered Analysis. CLA suggests that different layers of the world can influence each other and can therefore interact each other’s temporalities. All layers are considered at once. Inayatullah (2015, 17) writes: ‘CLA can still be used as a way to develop a neutral map of the future; it does not need to offer a preferred future. The map can help individuals and organisations to understand the whole of the litanies, systems, worldviews and metaphor’
These layers proceed at different speeds, but can be experienced at the same time. For example, mythical/metaphorical time according to Cowart (2022, 54–55) can be described in the following way: ‘We can think of the monomythical archplot structure (or any story structure, though here we will stick with the archplot structure) in CLA as inhabiting the interstices between myth and metaphor. It draws on the ritualised archetypal narratives of creations and conflicts as it configures and situates the positionality of the discourse in such a way as to allow for organising metaphors to emerge and cultivate cultural coherence. From the miasma of events, experiences and sensation—both real and imaginary—bits of information are pulled together to make sense of it all.’
Events are pulled together to create a coherent narrative by myth and metaphor. Like the Atman or OM in Vedanta this can indicate eternal aspects or can create more dynamic ‘creation and conflict’ like in the above quote. On the other hand, mythical time could be seen as in tension with other ‘temporalities’ from other layers. For example, the Russian conflict with Ukraine can be seen as having several temporal layers (Sukhorolskyi 2022). Firstly, there are the litany of events, such as the conflict over the island of Tuzla in 2003, to the annexation of Crimea and also the full-scale invasion of 2022. On the other hand, if we consider the third level of CLA, which analyses worldviews and discourses, we can see more enduring temporalities like a Westernisation worldview in Ukraine and Zelenskyy’s anti-establishment discourse. Sukhorolskyi (2022) also mentions mythical temporalities, like the longer lasting Great Patriotic War narrative and Russian exceptionalism. CLA can thus highlight different temporal speeds, however these are connected and can influence each other. An integrated view is necessary (Inayatullah 2015, 14): ‘The challenge, as with all foresight work, is to move from fragmentation to the preferred future, the integrated way forward.’
However, there are still some differences to my argument despite these clarifications in the later CLA literature. Firstly, I emphasise a literal interpretation of futures existing, like in physics or deconstruction, it is a node in a network that is there. Thus while in Futures Studies, time is negotiated, multilayered and context dependent, it does not go the fullest extent of claiming futures are ontologically real. While the idea of Westernisation or reform might pull Ukraine forward because they may be someone’s ‘preferred futures’, it does not claim futures exist out there and instead suggests images of futures which can be negotiated can exist (see Dator’s quote below).
A final point on CLA. Inayatullah (2005) suggests it opens up futures through its layered approach, which, like in Ukraine and Russia, shows the presence of multiple temporalities across the different levels. This could arguably be compared to Derrida’s (1967) concept of Différance in which there are traces of different temporalities due to deconstruction of the metaphysics of presence. Yet, I hold my network approach is different due to how its portrayal of time as a network and due to its insistence that the future is already ‘out there’ ontologically existing.
Sardar’s concept of postnormal times suggests we are living in a period of upheaval and uncertainty (Sardar 2010). In which, there is chaos, complexity and contradictions (Sardar and Sweeney 2016). One key concept is the extended present which suggests the trends of the future will be embedded in the actions of the day. After this there is the familiar future based on images and concepts we have (e.g., science-fiction) of the near future. We also have the unthought future which is the horizon of possibilities of ideas no one has came up with yet (Sardar and Sweeney 2016). This does sound like it dislocates time a bit like physics and Derrida. Sardar (2021) goes on to suggest that because of this the future affects the present. Yet, despite this, I still see no indication that time is abandoned as absolute factor. The future affecting the present is not really about causes coming from the future, but more about ideas and concepts about it, plus potentialities, driving change in the present. In my vision, the future affects the present and the past directly because the future is a temporality (or series of temporalities) that already exists out there. In Sardar’s postnormal times the future does affect the present but this is because ideas of the future drive the present, rather than the future itself existing and affecting the past and present. A question you might be asking now is: if the future already exists then what is the point of Futures Studies? I will try to address this in the next section. However, firstly, I want to discuss some of the other views on time in the Futures literature.
According to a range of literature, the future in Futures Studies is negotiated and relative time. I want to separate this from my arguments, by highlighting how I refer to the relational and networked time, but also in how the past, present and future exist at the same time (the future/s is out there already). Dator (2017, 94) writes: ‘The future does not exist. Instead, futurists study (and often produce) varying images of the future, endeavoring to understand where images come from and how they might influence human actions in the present so as to help in the creation of alternative futures.’
These seems at odd with the timelessness of Vedanta, the physics of Einstein and Rovelli, plus Derrida. However, Dator does suggest there are images of Futures that drive us. Hodgson (2017, 209) adds to this when they write: ‘Our common language tends to treat “the future” as something that exists in some sense that makes it studiable. But there are many possible angles on this existence. The future does not seem to exist as the present exists, and so it could be an abstraction, a mental construct that is useful to considering choices.’
Bussey (2017, 236) adds another perspective:
‘Futurists are disturbers of the peace. As they work with organizations, businesses, community groups, students, and individuals—or even as they sit at their desks and reflect on such engagements—they are seeking to disrupt dominant assumptions about the lifeworld and to expose and explore possible new pathways to futures previously denied or discounted.’
These all suggest the future is negotiable and I am not denying this, but they miss the point that the future already exists in our network of pasts, presents and futures. Absolute time does not exist and time is relational. However, not all Futurists see time as linear. There are various macrohistorical approaches that offer a different view, that suggest time is cyclical. This is more akin to what I have been trying to argue, but still does not suggest the future already exists out there. Gidley (2017) describes how until the invention of clocks in the fourteenth century, time was more cyclical. It followed tools like sundials and stone circicles. Large astronomical cycles, the sun and moon and the seasons created the sense of time coming in cycles. Staley (2017) also suggests societies with elaborate calendars or astronomical observatories saw time as cyclical. This is seen by monuments like Stonehenge or the octagonal earthworks in Newark, Ohio. These were attuned to the movement of the heavens- certain cosmological events were recurring. As Staley (2017, 36) argues ‘the future was understood to be a station in a closed temporal circuit containing events that had happened before.’ This sounds like what I am arguing, but is not completely congruent. Staley describes a ‘spiral’ view on time. He (Staley 2017, 37) states ‘there is a shape or structure or wireframe to the future because it will take on characteristics of proceeding periods in the spiral. But that future is neither fixed nor preexisting: a balance between existence and potential.’
So while it argues that an aspect of the future is already present through the renactment of time, Staley does not suggest the future exists already, instead ‘that future is neither fixed nor preexisting.’
It would be amiss of me to ignore that some people suggest multiple temporalities exist at the same time. Poli (2017) suggests social time (i.e. the time that governs society- work hours, etc.) is not the same as psychological or biological time. Inayatullah (2017, 32), while discussing macrohistory, states ‘far more challenging is to be able to use multiple patterns: to see what is linear, what is cyclical, what is a pendulum, and what is spiral.’ In other words, multiple, not always linear, temporalities can exist at the same time. There are indeed multiple temporalities out there, but these can be seen as relational whether through Derrida, physics or Hinduist orthodoxy. The past, present and future already exist in a network, there is no absolute sense of the present (it is always relative and defined by its relations), something which the literature reviewed misses because it focuses on causality and patterns.
Futures Studies in a Timeless World
My critique of time as a concept may have individuals worrying about the relevance of Futures Studies to a world without absolute time. I now want to discuss some possibilities of how we might proceed in such a situation. As Futurists work with multiple negotiated temporalities you could say this is of limited importance, yet we still need to consider the ontological dimensions of futures already existing. Firstly, just because Future
I have hoped to demonstrate that even if we abandon the concept of common sense time, there is still hope for Futures Studies. The future (or preferably futures) already exist and can affect our temporality. I or you (the observer) can move between different times or be affected by changes in different times. When I use the term ‘timeless’, I refer to the fact that time no longer has relevance. When a futurist studies futures in a world based on modern physics and poststructuralism, one comes to see one is not necessarily studying a different time, but a location or node on a network within which time passes at a different speed. But it is timeless in the sense that the present is inherently connected to the past and future. The future can still be studied because it exists already, the world is timeless the past, present and future can only be distinguished by their location in a network, rather than as a distinct inaccessible time period. The past and future are the present of a different location.
Lessons
What is the ‘future’ in Futures Studies? The normal approach is to suggest the future does not exist until tomorrow, in a year, in a decade. Yet, if one reads Derrida, Einstein, Rovelli and Vedic texts one can get an appreciation of the fact that time does not exist as an absolute. In fact, as suggested, we only get the feeling of time passing due to the interactions between different temporal locations (in which every location is a different present). ‘Time’ is ‘out of joint’ due to the effect of gravity warping space-time, the influence of loop quantum gravity and finally due to the role of presence/absence in language, consciousness and beyond. I then suggested that we or objects might be able to move across times and that the current present is always affected by ‘futures’ and ‘pasts’ that exist as alternative presents. It is hoped this essay has shown that the ‘future’ in ‘futures studies’ can no longer be considered as something that will happen tomorrow, it exists in the now. And because of that we are forced to act now.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funded by Jisc agreement to be open access.
