Just because space, time, and ego can be transcended does not mean that, for all practical purposes, they don't in fact exist.
Could it be that consciousness is the quantum mechanical process of tunneling through time?
The familiar matter with which we interact every day is only relatively invariant. As the Buddha was quick to reinforce in his disciples at every opportunity, impermanence is rather the rule.
There seems to be confusion about whether quantum entanglement violates the Special Theory of Relativity and whether this amounts to a major, jarring conflict in our theory. If one assumes that the level at which entanglement occurs is more fundamental than the plane of mass-energy, there need be no conflict. Matter and energy are deep, but not fundamental.
If time were not a factor, the concept of "now" would have no meaning.
The subjective perception of duration is a consequence of the brain's processing of memory, and is thus an illusion. Whatever time "is," it is not anything like we think.
Life is a bubble of time which will pop.
Light defines space and time. When you've gone deeper than light, you've gone completely beyond and outside of space and time.
The nature of time is obviously very mysterious. It is rather easy to describe our perception of time and duration as a subjective phenomenon, which is fine, but what is the objective nature of the medium in which temporal (and spatial) change is occurring? If objective time is an illusion too, what about clocks that spin at different rates in different reference frames in experiments? This clearly has nothing to do with concepts of duration. There is something deeper. The mystics talk about transcending time, but it seems to me that the lot of them sure spend most of their time in it.
The concept of cause and effect has no meaning outside of space and time.
Time is a variable that has never been less important for me. Yes, I adhere to work schedules, and the daily rotation of the Earth, and I get a little impatient sometimes, but I no longer really look to the past or to the future. I am usually (though not always) content to exist in the present. (This is emphatically not to say that it is easy or wise to fully dismiss time. In the end, after all, we die of it.)
We are, in all reality, actually living in the past. It takes time for energy to stimulate a nerve, for that nerve signal to travel to the brain, for that signal to be processed, and for that information to be generated as meaningful conscious qualia. It's hard to understand how the concept that 'it is only always now' can be true in any proper way. If "now" is not really now, and therefore past and future must be real in any case, the notion of the timeless for humans has some implausibility in practice.
Space, time, and light, as we perceive them, exist only in the mind.
Matter and energy, atoms and molecules, are real, but they are certainly not the whole story. Chemistry is clearly a reality; the point is that it is not the fundamental reality. Quantum particles surely exist, and behave approximately as we describe them, but we are erroneous in how we relate to them. We treat the chemical world as if it were the ultimate, final objective reality. In actuality, the universe has mind-like properties, and chemistry is one manifestation of that greater overarching intelligence. In other words, atomic particles originate in a ground that is fundamental for our universe; they are not in fact that ground itself.
As one's velocity increases, time slows. When one is moving at very high-velocity, time is at a slow crawl -- very different than the normal perception of duration. When one attains and transcends the speed of light barrier, time no longer exists. There is only consciousness and information.
Light energy may not be the fundamental level for the cosmos, but it is deeply involved with that level.
There is no reason to assign finality or certitude to what is basically a bias that time flows in one and only one direction. In the established laws of physics, time is symmetric. That is, events can happen after or before their causes. So it would not be absurd to say that the primordial reality, including its mammoth time scales, is simply the furthest and least concentrated and least populated tip of a tentacle whose source is where all the action is.
The future is a source of brightness shining back through time. We move toward it through time, but it is the cause, not what is caused. The distant past is the most remote point, the one furthest removed, from the center -- which is that bright source in our future. We are biased into illusion when it comes to our predominant cultural approaches to time.
Space and time, as perceptual frameworks, are subjective and arbitrary. (It is recognized -- or at least supposed -- that, in purely literal terms, space and time have no "existence" independent of active perception, hence the term 'perceptual'). There is no truth which stipulates that what an individual sees "out there" is "the way it really is." For example, an extraterrestrial's perception of the universe may be so foreign to ours that no description or translation of it may be possible (at least on a basic level). Its conventions for expressing to itself the realities of space and time may not have any Cartesian bent whatsoever. Something to keep in mind.
All the cosmos is physically connected in time as well as space. What does this mean? Perhaps it makes teleology possible....
There are aspects of the mind which exist and function independently of the dimension of time. In certain states of mind one can see that time is a sort of frame of the mind which can be transcended. Einstein's theories verify this.
"Time" is a function of how the human brain processes memory. Our experience of time is totally subjective; it does not correlate to anything that is actually "out there." Time as a dimension of course exists, but there is nothing objective about our experience of it. Just as it is meaningless to say that an apple "is" red -- our eyes, being tuned to a specific part of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, perceive a wholly subjective quality we perceive as the familiar color red -- it is equally meaningless to say that an hour "is" a long time, or that our experience of an hour corresponds in any meaningful way to the objective dimension of time (whose existence science has of course measured). As evolution proceeds, our knowledge about this subject will expand significantly.
It is very Zen to say that only the present moment exists and time is an illusion, but what about Special Relativity? If you put a very accurate clock in an SR-71 Blackbird, synchronize it to another on the ground and compare the two after a supersonic flight, the Blackbird's clock will be just a little slow. This underscores the inescapable fact that there is a real, measurable, relative dimension whose existence is not arbitrary and which in certain circumstances "flows" at a different rate compared to a different frame of reference. If time isn't real, how can the clocks show different times if, as very accurate clocks which do not lose or gain time, they started in a simultaneous state? These clocks clearly exist in a dimension which can speed up or slow down depending on one's perspective and one's frame of reference. To say that a clock on the wall imposes time on an inherently timeless, static, purely cyclical universe is to completely ignore what we have now rigorously confirmed about Einstein's discoveries and predictions. The watch on your wrist is not superfluous.
It can be declared impossible to get one's head around the subject of time -- what it is, what it means, why it is such a blur and so unforgiving. In the final analysis, I suppose all one can really say with any honest conviction about reality is that I am here, it is now, and there is change. Anything else is either a guess, a metaphor, or nonsense.
Space and time are not objectively constituted phenomena, for us. They are a subjective manifestation of the brain's way of processing perception. Aliens from afar and even different species of animals on Earth may experience the universe so totally differently that there would not even be a workable translation of the individual perception between creatures. For example, what would it be like to see 360 degrees at once? Is smell to dogs like sight to eagles? What is the likelihood that an alien (if there even are any) experiences space and time the same way we do? Does not a good Dali painting illustrate this point, or was Dali crazy? Isn't human perception of space and time much more a human phenomenon than a universal one?
Einstein showed us that mass tells space how to curve, and space tells mass how to move.
In reality, our entire existence, our whole experience, is light. It is essentially the entire content of our awareness.
To me, the Uncertainty Principle and the speed of light barrier are highly analogous in that both are transcended after a certain point, or at a certain level.
All the gluons-electrons-neutrons-quarks small particle business is an illusion. In reality, consciousness comes before mass-energy, not after. In the modern West, we tend to think that consciousness is the result of interactions of these fundamental entities. In point of fact, they are extensions or projections from a cosmic substratum that can only be called consciousness, or cosmic consciousness if you want. Consciousness is the most fundamental level in our universe. More fundamental than light and mass and the four forces and all that. There could be dimensions beyond it in the universe or in other universes things could be quite different. But at least in this universe, consciousness suffuses and gives rise to everything.
Time is to be transcended, but it doesn't ever seem to go away completely. Whenever it is attenuated, well, it sure seems like it always comes back pretty quickly. This must be one of the features of being alive. Qualitative time may be malleable, but quantitative time seems difficult to stop. And even outside of time, there is a passage of events. Are these occurring in a time-like dimension? Time is indeed exceptionally mysterious.
It is an interesting question whether the future would be affected by time travel to the past. Perhaps, if you go back and don't change much, the future won't be altered in any significant way, if at all. Chaos mathematicians would argue that your very presence, a single breath, would cause a perturbation that would alter the future radically. A quantum universe may indicate the former to be true, given its fuzziness and lack of determinism. Perhaps, if time travel can indeed take place, a given event was always going to happen, so travelers from the future were always in a definite timeline no matter what. If I go back to 1950, I was always going to be there at that time. Even though I visit as a representative of the future, it was always part of the timeline, so when 1950 occurs, I am there no matter what. This could be a sort of resolution of the famous paradoxes of causality many idle enthusiasts describe.
It's not possible for matter or energy to travel through time, but it is possible for consciousness to do so.
It is perfectly possible to transmit information faster than light -- the process doesn't depend on electromagnetism. It seems to be impossible to transmit mass-energy faster than light. So Relativity has its place.
Separateness is very real, but also illusory. Ultimately we're all made of atoms which were born in stars. The process by which those atoms construct themselves, energize and interact is what unites us in one undivided movement. That is not to say we are defined by matter and energy, but rather, what gives rise to matter and energy.
The nonlocal circuit transcends time, but we are not usually aware of that aspect of its operation. Certainly, when we are, it is revelatory. But, short of death, very few are permitted to transcend the clutches of time indefinitely.
The universe may not be truly infinite, but we must remember that there is such a thing as a finite infinity.
Our experience of time may indeed be a subjective phenomenon. But time is only a measurement of change, and, since we can say change is in some way objective, so must we deduce that time has an objective component as well. Our experience of time, and time as a concrete physical phenomenon, are two distinct (though interdependent) phenomena. We too easily dismiss time as an illusion, when this may not be the whole story.
I've grown weary of the assertion that time is an illusion and doesn't really exist. A Buddhist monk or an advanced psychonaut may be able to transcend the dimension for a little while, but that doesn't mean that time doesn't exist. The Buddha died, you know.
The past and the future are just as important and just as real as the present. The present may be the only moment we ever have access to, but neither remembering the past nor having some concept of the future is superfluous.
Light existing objectively, and light existing in the mind, though in some ways distinct, both obey the laws of Relativity.