Time as the Primordial Fabric - Is “change” more fundamental than “where things are”?

Jorge Luis Borges once said : “Time is the substance from which all things are made,”

Introduction: Throughout history, thinkers have debated whether change and process (temporal becoming) or static being is more fundamental to reality.

Many ancient philosophers, like Heraclitus, upheld flux and becoming as the essence of the universe, whereas others like Parmenides and Plato posited an eternal, unchanging reality behind the scenes.

In modern times, process philosophers (e.g. Whitehead and Bergson) and continental thinkers (e.g. Heidegger and Deleuze) have championed the primacy of becoming, often in reaction to a tradition that treated being as primary.

Even in physics, debates rage over whether time is a fundamental ingredient of the cosmos or an emergent illusion – with thinkers like Lee Smolin arguing for a real, evolving time, and others like Julian Barbour contending that time doesn’t exist at the deepest level.

This essay will survey these philosophical frameworks that elevate temporal process over spatial/static being, and examine how they resonate with a bold new idea in physics: Gunther Kletetschka’s “Three-Dimensional Time” proposal, which treats time as the fundamental three-dimensional fabric from which mass, energy, and space emerge[1].

We will explore how Kletetschka’s theory reinforces or challenges these traditions and consider the profound implications for reality, consciousness, and cosmology if temporal becoming is ontologically primary.

Heraclitus vs. Parmenides and Plato: Being or Becoming?

In Western philosophy’s beginnings, the battle between being and becoming was epitomized by Heraclitus and Parmenides. Heraclitus of Ephesus (6th–5th c. BC) taught that reality is perpetual change – a continuous flux where “everything flows” and nothing stays completely still[2]. He famously said one cannot step into the same river twice, emphasizing that the world is always “becoming” and never simply “being.” This worldview held that change is the fundamental essence of the universe, and any apparent stability is just a unity of opposing forces in tension[2]. By contrast, Heraclitus’s near-contemporary Parmenides of Elea asserted the opposite: true reality is static, one, and unchanging, and all change or plurality is a mere illusion. For Parmenides, time and motion were deceptive appearances; only eternal being (completely still and indivisible) truly exists[3]. This stark opposition set the stage for a central question in metaphysics: is permanence or process the bedrock of reality?

Plato (4th c. BC), deeply influenced by Parmenides, further developed the view that ultimate reality is timeless and changeless. In Plato’s philosophy, especially as expressed in the Timaeus, the cosmos is divided into two realms: the sensible world of becoming (our physical, ever-changing world) and the intelligible world of Being (the perfect, eternal Forms or Ideas). Time itself, Plato suggested, is merely a moving shadow of eternity: he famously called time “the moving image of eternity,” implying that the flow of time is a mere reflection of a higher timeless order[4][5]. For Plato, Being (the realm of Forms) is timeless, motionless, and perfect, whereas time and change belong to the realm of Becoming*, the domain of change, imperfection, and flux[4]. In his cosmology, time comes into existence together with the physical universe as a kind of imitative motion – a clockwork that “flows” only in imitation of the atemporal eternity of the Forms[5]. Thus, in the Platonic-Parmenidean tradition, changeless Being is ontologically prior to change and becoming. Material things “exist” in time, but time is subordinate – a feature of the lower reality. This perspective contrasts sharply with Heraclitus’s: where Heraclitus sees fire and flux as fundamental and stability as illusory, Plato and Parmenides see eternal being as fundamental and change as ontologically secondary or even illusory[3][4]**.

The tension between these views – Heraclitean flux versus Parmenidean-Platonic permanence – became a defining theme through the history of philosophy. It resurfaced in various forms over millennia, setting the backdrop for later thinkers who would either defend the primacy of static being (as in classical substance metaphysics and “eternalist” theories of time) or instead champion the primacy of becoming and process.

Process Philosophy: Whitehead, Bergson, and the Primacy of Becoming

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a movement known as process philosophy explicitly put change, evolution, and becoming at the center of metaphysics. Process philosophy is defined by its emphasis on “becoming and changing over static being.” It asserts that the language of processes, development, and flux are more apt for describing reality than the language of fixed substances and permanence[6]. Thinkers like Alfred North Whitehead and Henri Bergson (among others) spearheaded this shift, effectively reviving Heraclitean intuition in a modern context.

Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) developed a comprehensive process metaphysics in his work Process and Reality. Whitehead boldly asserted that “the world, at its most fundamental level, is made up of momentary events of experience rather than enduring material substances.” What truly exists are events or “actual occasions” – flashes of becoming, experiences that come into being and perish – rather than permanent particles or static things[7]. In Whitehead’s view, an apparently persistent object (like a rock or a person) is really a series or “society” of occasions linked by continuity. Each actual occasion is a process of creativity, integrating influences from past events and yielding something novel. Reality for Whitehead is essentially processual and interdependent: “Creativity”, the constant production of new events, is the ultimate principle[8]. Notably, Whitehead’s scheme even aligns with modern physics to an extent – he takes inspiration from the relativistic idea that events (not substances) are primary. The upshot is that being is reinterpreted as becoming: what we think of as a stable entity is just the cumulative outcome of many micro-processes. Stability or “being” is thus an abstraction – a snapshot of an ongoing creative process. As one commentator puts it, Whitehead refused to “collapse becoming into being, or time into space”[9], insisting that the passage of time and the emergence of novelty are irreducible features of the real[6].

Around the same time, Henri Bergson (1859–1941) was also arguing for the primacy of time and creative change – but from a psychological and experiential angle. Bergson introduced the concept of la durée (duration), meaning the continuous, qualitative flow of lived time. He distinguished this real, felt time from the spatialized, quantified time used in science. Bergson observed that classical science treats time like a homogeneous line, divided into uniform segments (seconds, minutes, etc.), which is essentially a misapplication of spatial concepts to time[10]. This “scientific” time, Bergson argued, is an abstract construction – a series of discrete, instant-like frames (like the frames of a film reel) that we then mistake for time itself[11]. In reality, according to Bergson, time is not a series of static moments but an indivisible flow: a process of becoming where past and present interpenetrate and new forms continually arise. Our inner experience testifies to this: “We don’t really experience life as a succession of separate states… Instead, we feel time as a continuous flow, with no clearly demarcated beginnings and ends”[12]. Bergson held that creative evolution – the unpredictable emergence of new forms and the novelty of each moment – is a fundamental feature of reality. In works like Time and Free Will and Creative Evolution, he portrays the universe as unceasing creation. For instance, he maintained that “Time is real. It is a process of becoming, a continual unfolding in which that which is new and unpredictable is always being created.” In contrast, treating time as if it were just another dimension of space (as in physics equations) “distorts the real nature of time”[10]. Bergson’s critique of the mechanistic view is encapsulated in his insight that we often “substitute the spatialized timeline for the fact of duration”, thereby forgetting that the flow of time is something fundamentally different from a line of ticking clock-instants[11].

Both Whitehead and Bergson – despite their different approaches (one metaphysical and cosmological, the other psychological and epistemological) – converge on a key point: reality is fundamentally temporal and processual. Being is not a static thing but a happening. In process philosophy, “development and change are more appropriate descriptors of reality than the language of static being”[13]. This approach also finds echoes in other thinkers: for example, Friedrich Nietzsche had earlier praised Heraclitus and posited a world of “becoming” where static truth dissolves; and later process thinkers like Charles Hartshorne and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin extended these ideas in theology and cosmology. Even various Eastern philosophies align with the process view: Buddhism’s doctrine of impermanence and Taoism’s emphasis on the ever-flowing Tao resonate with Heraclitean flux[14]. In all these, the primacy of change, time, and creative becoming is affirmed. From this standpoint, matter, objects, even laws might be secondary patterns or habits of an underlying process. This sets a fertile stage to compare with modern physics – which historically tended to treat time as an independent background or even an illusion – and see a revival of time’s importance there.

Time and Change in Continental Philosophy: Heidegger and Deleuze

European continental philosophers in the 20th century also grappled with the question of time’s primacy, often challenging the traditional priority of timeless being. Two notable examples are Martin Heidegger and Gilles Deleuze, who, in very different ways, placed time, difference, and change at the heart of philosophy.

Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), in his magnum opus Being and Time (1927), famously reinterpreted the question of Being through the lens of time. Heidegger argued that the Western metaphysical tradition (from Plato onward) had largely misunderstood or “forgotten” the true meaning of Being by treating it as something present-at-hand and timeless – essentially turning Being into a static object or eternal substance. In contrast, Heidegger proposed that time (temporality) is the key to understanding being itself. His “being-question” led him to the claim that “time is the possible horizon for any understanding whatsoever of Being.”[15] In other words, it is only in and through time that things are for us at all. Rather than assuming we first have a realm of fully constituted beings and then time as a parameter in which they change, Heidegger suggests that temporality is constitutive of the being of entities. Specifically, human existence (Dasein) experiences being through temporal structures like past (having-been), future (possibility, projects), and present (current engagement) – and these temporal orientations underpin all intelligibility. “Only if and when temporality... makes ontology possible”, as Heidegger projected, could we truly answer what Being means[16]. Thus, Being is not a static presence; it’s bound up with dynamic existence in time. Heidegger even describes human being as “being-toward-death,” highlighting that our finitude (our temporal boundedness) is what gives meaning to our choices and identity. By making temporality the foundation of ontology, Heidegger flipped the classical view: rather than time being a mere measurement of change in already-existing entities, the being of entities is revealed only within the context of time (for instance, tools have meaning in the context of ongoing practical activity – a temporal process – not as isolated timeless objects). In summary, Heidegger’s philosophy elevates temporality to an ontological status: being is not truly graspable apart from time. This move can be seen as addressing the ancient Parmenidean problem by saying: the attempt to grasp an atemporal being is misguided – being “makes sense” only in the unfolding of time[15].

Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995), a French post-structuralist philosopher, took an even more radical stance on the primacy of becoming and difference. Deleuze was greatly influenced by thinkers of flux and process (he wrote on Bergson and Nietzsche, for example) and sought to overturn the dominance of identity, stability, and representation in Western thought. In Deleuze’s ontology, “all of life is flux. There is only change in the universe”, and thus “we obtain a remarkable perspective on the universe, and our lives, when we think in terms of process”[17]. For Deleuze, what exists are not stable essences but events, becomings, and differentiations. He famously called for a “Copernican revolution” in ontology: instead of starting with identity (stable being) and treating difference as a secondary deviation, we must start with Difference itself – a dynamic field of forces – and see identities as temporary by-products[18]. “Identity is not first,” Deleuze insists, “it exists as a second principle, a principle become, revolving around the Different”[18]. In plainer terms, any stable thing (identity) is an after-effect of an underlying process of change (difference). Becoming has metaphysical priority over being. He even defines “being” as univocal becoming – meaning everything that exists, exists in the same way as a process of differentiation and change. Deleuze’s concept of time is nuanced (he speaks of multiple “syntheses” of time, and distinguishes Chronos vs. Aion – different aspects of temporal reality), but the core idea is that time is not a homogeneous container; it is the intrinsic dynamics of reality. Past, present, future for Deleuze are not just positions on a line but interpenetrating circuits of repetition and difference that produce continuity and novelty. In sum, Deleuze carries the Heraclitean torch into contemporary philosophy by asserting that “permanence” is a kind of illusion – or rather, a snapshot of an ever-creative flux. “Becoming is not being, not static, not defined or extended… It has no beginning nor end in time, as we usually conceive that term,” writes one interpreter of Deleuze[19]. It is an ongoing, creative, overflowing process[20]. This stance resonates with process philosophy and also prefigures some interpretations in modern science (for instance, the idea that the universe is a kind of continuous creation of new states).

Both Heidegger and Deleuze, though very different in style and emphasis, treat time/change as something deeply fundamental rather than incidental. Heidegger sees time as the transcendental horizon of any understanding of being[15]. Deleuze sees time (or rather, the continual production of difference) as the immanent force of being itself – reality is constituted by becoming. These continental perspectives add philosophical richness to the notion that perhaps the cosmos is better described as a network of processes or events rather than as a collection of enduring things. Such ideas intriguingly parallel some developments in modern physics and cosmology, where the nature of time has become a hot topic.

Physics and the Reality of Time: Smolin, Rovelli, and Barbour

While philosophy was wrestling with being vs. becoming, physics for a long time leaned towards a timeless view of reality – especially after Einstein’s theory of relativity. In Einstein’s block universe, past, present, and future are all equally existent in a four-dimensional spacetime manifold; time is just another dimension, and the flow of time or “now” has no special status in the fundamental equations. This scientific perspective seemed to echo Parmenides and Plato: the universe is a static spacetime, and our sense of a flowing present is subjective. However, not all physicists and philosophers of physics have been content with this picture. In recent decades, several have argued that time might be truly fundamental after all, or conversely, doubled down on the idea that time is an illusion. Here we consider three influential views at the intersection of physics and metaphysics: Lee Smolin’s temporal naturalism, Carlo Rovelli’s relational time, and Julian Barbour’s timeless universe.

Lee Smolin (b. 1955), a theoretical physicist, is a vocal proponent of the reality of time. He has introduced a viewpoint called “temporal naturalism,” which holds that time (the succession of moments) is real and fundamental, and even the laws of nature might evolve over cosmic time[21]. Smolin contrasts this with what he calls “timeless naturalism,” the mainstream view that the laws are fixed and time and the present moment are illusory at the fundamental level[22]. In a 2013 essay, Smolin argued that the passage of time is not just a subjective impression but an objective feature of the universe, and that a physics which truly includes time’s reality can better explain certain puzzles[21]. For example, if time is fundamental, one can contemplate that the “laws of physics themselves can change” (perhaps in response to the state of the universe), which could address the problem of why our universe has the particular laws/constants it does. Smolin even suggests this approach is empirically more adequate, because it provides natural explanations for things like the arrow of time and cosmological initial conditions that timeless block-universe models struggle with[23]. Importantly, Smolin (often in collaboration with philosopher Roberto Unger) has also argued that if time is real, the future is genuinely open – new events, new structures can arise that are not predetermined by some eternal design. This resonates with process philosophy’s idea of ongoing creation. Furthermore, Smolin has intriguingly connected the reality of time to the mind: he claims that only a framework with real time can “make a place for qualia and experience” as intrinsic aspects of the world[24]. In a timeless world, conscious experience (which unfolds in time) is hard to account for; but if the flow of time is fundamental, our immediate experience of a moving present might correspond to something real out there, not just a cognitive mirage. Thus Smolin’s temporal naturalism reinforces the intuition that our felt sense of time’s flow and the novelty of each moment reflect a deep cosmic truth – a stance quite aligned with Bergson’s, albeit coming from physics. (Smolin laid out many of these ideas in his book Time Reborn and other writings, advocating that physics must treat time as truly fundamental to make further progress[21].)

On the other hand, Carlo Rovelli (b. 1956), a major contributor to loop quantum gravity, offers a nuanced relational view that in some ways denies time’s fundamentality – yet still affirms a world of events and processes. Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics posits that the properties of any object (including temporal relations) exist only in relation to other objects or observers[25]. He emphasizes that there is no global, God’s-eye time coordinate – instead, time is like a patchwork of processes seen from within the universe. In his recent popular book The Order of Time, Rovelli argues that many familiar aspects of time disappear at the fundamental level: there is no single universal “now”, no flow, and perhaps time as we think of it does not exist in the fundamental equations[26]. Indeed, in loop quantum gravity, one can write the equations without any time variable at all[27] – instead, the world is described by networks of relationships that evolve relative to each other. “Those concepts [space and time] emerge from how these quanta of gravity interact and transform,” Rovelli says; “what we call space is the web of relationships (quantum loops), and what we call time is how these loops change.”[28] In this view, time is not a fundamental container, but an emergent aspect of interrelated events. So how do we account for our strong perception of time flowing? Rovelli attributes our sense of a flowing time to thermodynamics and entropy: the “arrow of time” (the distinction between past and future) comes from the increase of entropy, and our memory and records are built on that asymmetry[29]. In a universe with no built-in time variable, the second law of thermodynamics (increase of disorder) gives a direction to experienced time. Rovelli even likens our perception of a flowing, universal time to the illusion of the sun moving across the sky: it’s a real effect from our perspective, but not an absolute cosmic fact[30]. “My intuition is that the overall flow of time is like the rotation of the sky every day… a majestic phenomenon, but actually an illusion,” he says – real as an experience (like the rotating night sky is real to our eyes) but not fundamental[30]. Thus, Rovelli’s perspective demotes time to a secondary, emergent phenomenon – much as Plato did, albeit with modern scientific reasoning. However, Rovelli’s world is anything but static: it is a relational event universe, a network of processes where space and time as continuous manifolds are approximate notions. In a sense, Rovelli agrees with the process philosophers that we should not privilege static being: “the world is made of events, not things,” he often says. But he also challenges the process philosopher’s intuitive idea of time by saying that what we call “time” might just be a coarse-grained view of a much stranger underlying process. In short, time for Rovelli is real but not fundamental – it’s an emergent relation.

Finally, Julian Barbour (b. 1937) represents perhaps the most extreme view of a timeless reality. Barbour argues that time is an illusion and that the universe can be understood as a collection of “Nows” – complete configurations of the universe – which do not occur in time but rather constitute time by their ordered sequence. In his book The End of Time (1999), Barbour describes a vision of the world as a static configuration space he calls “Platonia” (a nod to Plato’s timeless forms): each point in Platonia is a possible arrangement of all particles in the universe. We experience moving through time only because the “Nows” we perceive are different configurations with records of previous ones. Barbour replaces the idea of an flowing time-line with a notion of a timeless ensemble of moments[31]. “The history of the universe… comprises a collection of such instants,” he writes[31]. Each instant contains within it traces or records (like fossil imprints, memory in our brains, documentation) of what we call the past[32]. We infer a flow from these records, but in reality, says Barbour, only the instants exist – “There is, in fact, no passage of time, only a series of instants, but each instant contains records… which give the impression that time is passing.”[32] The direction of time (why we experience one particular order of instants) he attributes to the growth of complexity: essentially, as the universe “unfolds” (in terms of increasing entropy or some measure of structure), the instants can be ordered from simpler to more complex, which we experience as past to future[33][34]. In Barbour’s words, “Records, or apparent records, play a vital role in my idea that time is an illusion… the things we call records are real enough… They are the genuine cause of our belief in time.”[35] Our belief in an flowing time is thus caused by the presence of embedded memories and structures in each Now that reference other Nows. Barbour’s timeless view strikingly echoes Parmenides and Plato: it resurrects the notion that only being (each Now) is real, while becoming (the passage) is a cognitive construct. Notably, Barbour’s idea draws some support from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in quantum gravity, which (like Rovelli’s reasoning) has no time variable – implying a kind of timeless quantum universe. While Barbour’s ideas are controversial and not widely accepted among physicists (and indeed have been criticized by some for lacking clear predictions[36]), they serve as a rigorous modern challenge to time’s fundamentality. He asks us to imagine a universe where “change is real, but time is not” – change being just the difference between static configurations, without an additional time parameter ticking in the background.

In summary, modern physics and cosmology are split on the status of time. We see a spectrum: Smolin insists on real, unfolding time as the driver of cosmic evolution[21]; Rovelli sees time as a secondary concept emerging from relational dynamics and thermodynamics[29]; Barbour claims time is altogether an illusion, with change being just a configuration difference without an underlying time dimension[31][35]. These debates show that the old philosophical dilemma is alive in science: is the universe an evolving process or an eternal block? If time is fundamental, physics may have to accommodate mutable laws, an open future, perhaps even a role for novelty or mind. If time is emergent/illusory, then physics seeks a timeless formulation of laws and views our sense of flow as a kind of approximation or artifact (much like how Plato viewed the sensory world).

Crucially, these modern positions resonate with earlier philosophies: Barbour’s timeless Platonia explicitly harkens back to Plato’s realm of static being[37]; Smolin’s evolving laws and insistence on the reality of time echo the process philosophers (and even Heraclitus) in saying “nature is time-soaked” and nothing is fully fixed[23]. And Rovelli’s view, interestingly, shares something with Deleuze or Buddhist philosophy: that what exists are events/relations (not substance), but our usual categories (like a flowing one-dimensional time) are convenient fictions that dissolve under analysis – leaving a perhaps more complicated, yet more “relational,” temporal structure.

This brings us to Gunther Kletetschka’s recent proposal of Three-Dimensional Time, which pushes the envelope by suggesting that time is not only fundamental, but has a richer structure (three dimensions) than traditionally assumed. It’s a bold new hypothesis in physics that explicitly treats time, not space, as the foundational arena – a move that aligns with the philosophies of becoming we’ve discussed, while also introducing novel twists.

Kletetschka’s Three-Dimensional Time: Reshaping Reality’s Framework

Gunther Kletetschka’s 2025 paper, "Three-Dimensional Time: A Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Physics," proposes a radical rethinking of spacetime: instead of one dimension of time and three of space as in conventional physics, Kletetschka posits three orthogonal dimensions of time (t₁, t₂, t₃) which form the primary fabric of the universe, with the familiar three spatial dimensions emerging from this temporal trinity[38][1]. In Kletetschka’s theory, time is not just an abstract backdrop; it is a tangible, multi-dimensional entity – the very “canvas” on which reality is painted[1]. “These three time dimensions are the primary fabric of everything… Space still exists with its three dimensions, but it’s more like the paint on the canvas rather than the canvas itself,” Kletetschka explains[1]. This vivid metaphor encapsulates the theory’s philosophical inversion: traditionally we think of space as an arena and time as a line that plays out within it, but here time is the arena (and a 3D one at that), while space and matter are secondary patterns or “paints” that arise from the underlying temporal structure.

What does it mean to have three dimensions of time? Kletetschka links each time axis to different scales of physical phenomena: roughly, t₁ corresponds to the quantum scale (governing particle behavior and mass generation), t₂ to the interaction or particle generation scale (mediating between quantum and classical regimes, possibly related to weak force asymmetries), and t₃ to the cosmological scale (related to cosmic expansion, gravitational waves, the large-scale structure)[39]. All three intersect at a singular “Origin of time” (analogous to a Big Bang) but then span different “directions” of temporal evolution. One can imagine, as a loose analogy, that instead of a single timeline, the universe has a temporal space – so events can differ not only in “when” they occur along the main flow, but also in two other temporal degrees of freedom that might represent different possible outcomes or contexts at the same moment. Indeed, Kletetschka gives a thought experiment: imagine walking forward in time as usual, but then having another independent time direction that lets you step “sideways” to explore alternate outcomes of the same moment, and a third that represents transitions between those alternate histories[40]. In this scheme, phenomena like quantum superpositions or multiple particle generations could be manifestations of there being “room” in time for such variations. Cause and effect still hold – Kletetschka emphasizes that causality is preserved in his 3D time model[41][42] – but the web of causality is embedded in a richer temporal geometry. He avoids the fatal pitfalls of earlier multi-time proposals (which sometimes led to paradoxes or ambiguity in cause-effect) by devising a structure where “causes still precede effects… just in a more complex mathematical structure.”[42].

Philosophically, Kletetschka’s theory is a bold extension of the process-centric worldview. It resonates strongly with the ideas of Heraclitus and process philosophers: if time (change, becoming) is literally the substance of the cosmos, then indeed “matter is a property of time itself”, as the theory implies. This flips the classical view (where time is a dimension in which matter exists) on its head – much like Heraclitus would have us see fire and flux as the ultimate reality rather than static things. Kletetschka’s framework suggests that what we perceive as particles, forces, and even space are all manifestations of underlying temporal dynamics. In other words, process is primary, substance is secondary – a stance perfectly in line with Whitehead or Bergson. Whitehead argued reality is made of moments of experience; Kletetschka gives a physical analog: reality is made of “chunks” or directions of time whose interplay produces experienced physics.

Intriguingly, the idea of multiple time dimensions also finds echoes in some continental thought. For instance, Deleuze conceptualized time as having multiple “dimensions” or syntheses (such as the repeating cycles of the present, the eternal truth of the past, and the openness of the future in Difference and Repetition). While not the same as Kletetschka’s axes, it shows that philosophers have played with the notion that time’s structure may be richer than a single linear thread. Heidegger too spoke of “ecstasies of temporality” – the past, present, future structure of Dasein – which is a multi-faceted temporal structure (though still one-dimensional in a sense of sequence). Kletetschka’s t₁, t₂, t₃ could be seen as formalizing a kind of layered or branching time, something that philosophical intuition had touched on in musings about “the thickness of the Now” or multiple coexisting temporalities (e.g., psychological time vs cosmological time). His second time dimension (t₂) allows alternative versions of the same “time coordinate” (hence alternate outcomes)[39], which is reminiscent of the “branching timelines” in multiverse interpretations or the modal idea of many possible histories. The third time dimension (t₃) then measures transitions between these alternatives – one might poetically compare it to a meta-time of choice or cosmic evolution that selects among possibilities. These speculative connections highlight that Kletetschka’s model, though born from physics, connects to longstanding philosophical imaginings: What if reality is not a single line of time but a flow with depth and breadth?

Kletetschka’s approach also stakes out a clear position in the physics debates on time: it sides with time as fundamental and even richer than space, directly opposing the Barbour-type timeless view. In fact, the theory can be seen as a rejoinder to the block universe: it says not only is the universe not a static 4D block, it’s a 6-dimensional structure (3T + 3S) where the temporal part drives the show[38]. Space and mass-energy become emergent epiphenomena of temporal curvature and dynamics. This undermines the supremacy of space that started with Newton’s absolute space or Minkowski’s spacetime, and it elevates time to an even higher status than even Smolin does. Smolin argued one time is fundamental; Kletetschka essentially says three times are fundamental – giving time more degrees of freedom than space! It’s as if the universe is a kind of temporally extended entity first, which only secondarily unfolds spatial dimensions. In a philosophical light, this is a form of process metaphysics: reality = structured time; “things” = emergent, temporary patterns within time flow.

One might ask: does Kletetschka’s theory reinforce or challenge the thinkers we discussed? It clearly reinforces Heraclitus and the process philosophers, by providing a concrete model where becoming underlies being. It extends their ideas by suggesting that becoming itself has a complex geometry (three axes) – something even those philosophers didn’t anticipate, but arguably would fascinate them. A Heraclitean might interpret the three time axes as three fundamental “fires” or fluxes whose interplay yields the world order (Heraclitus did speak of the logos, a hidden harmony of opposites – one could whimsically analogize the three time dimensions to a triadic harmony of temporal fluxes). Whitehead might appreciate how the model naturally generates a hierarchy of processes (quantum, interaction, cosmological) that could be seen as analogous to Whitehead’s nested occasions at different scales, all integrated while preserving causality (which Kletetschka carefully maintains[42]). Bergson would be intrigued that time has “depth”, though he might caution not to re-spatialize time by turning it into three axes at right angles; yet Kletetschka’s time axes are not spatial axes – they are qualitatively distinct kinds of temporal progression, which might align with Bergson’s idea of different rhythms of duration (e.g. the experience of time by a mayfly vs a mountain could be “different time dimensions” in a loose sense).

Kletetschka’s theory also engages with the physics thinkers: It offers a way to unify quantum physics and gravity, potentially solving puzzles by using time-based explanations instead of spatial ones[43]. For instance, the longstanding problem of the three generations of elementary particles (why we have three copies of quarks/leptons with different masses) is neatly explained in his framework by the three time dimensions – each generation corresponds to excitations along a different temporal axis. This kind of explanation says: the universe’s temporal structure naturally produces the mass ratios and particle families we see, which is a major unification win. It aligns with what he calls for: “The path to unification might require fundamentally reconsidering the nature of physical reality itself… viewing time as three-dimensional can naturally resolve multiple physics puzzles”[44]. In other words, by making time primary (and multi-dimensional), we might finally crack the riddle of quantum gravity and other unsolved issues. This bold claim, if born out, would be a vindication for those like Smolin who’ve felt that treating time as real is key to progress. Indeed, Kletetschka’s results (deriving particle masses correctly, predicting new resonances, etc.) suggest that temporal structure can encode what previously seemed like arbitrary natural constants – implying a deeper lawfulness when time’s role is expanded[43]. It effectively challenges the Barbour/Rovelli approach by saying: rather than time emerging from a timeless static law, perhaps space and stable law emerge from a deeper time. The presence of multiple time dimensions also gives a novel twist on Rovelli’s relational idea: here relations can vary along different time axes, so one might get something akin to multiple coexisting “relational times” that could address quantum uncertainty or contextuality (pure speculation, but interestingly in line with Itzhak Bars’ earlier two-time physics ideas, which Kletetschka’s work builds upon and makes testable[45]).

In summary, Kletetschka’s 3D time fits into the tradition of philosophies privileging becoming by literalizing the notion that time is the substance of reality. It extends those traditions by proposing a previously unimagined structure (three-dimensional time) that could fulfill the unification dreams of physics. It also challenges any framework (philosophical or scientific) that sidelines time – be it Parmenides’ static One, Plato’s higher timeless Being, or Barbour’s Platonia. Kletetschka essentially says: not only is Heraclitus right that “everything flows,” but it flows in three independent directions! The theory elevates the “flowing” aspect of reality to an even more fundamental status than classical process philosophers might have dared. It invites us to rethink basic assumptions: e.g., there isn’t a single universal timeline along which all events are ordered (that was already questioned by relativity, but 3D time radicalizes it further by having multiple temporal axes that aren’t reducible to one order). Philosophically, this raises questions about identity and change: if an entity can have different states at the same “ordinary time” (because it moved along a second time axis), what does identity over time mean? Do we get a picture somewhat like the “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, but structured by time dimensions rather than parallel universes? Kletetschka hints that one could, for example, revisit the same moment of t₁ by moving along t₂ and find a different outcome – a bit like parallel versions of a day[40]. This touches on age-old questions of modal reality (could things have been otherwise?) – here, they are otherwise in a different temporal direction. Thus, 3D time might provide a formal way to include modal possibilities into the fabric of physical law, rather than relegating them to metaphysics or imagination.

Implications: If Temporal Becoming is Fundamental

Embracing temporal becoming as the ontologically primary reality – as these philosophies and Kletetschka’s theory do – carries profound implications for how we understand existence, consciousness, and the cosmos. It suggests a possible paradigm shift as radical as any in intellectual history. Let’s explore a few key implications and open questions:

Reality as Process, Not Thing: If time (change, process) is fundamental, then everything we call “reality” is essentially an ongoing event or interaction. This means that stability, objects, even particles are emergent patterns of stability in an underlying flux. We move from a noun-based worldview to a verb-based worldview. The identity of objects becomes like the shape of a whirlpool in a river – recognizable yet constantly renewed by the flow. This aligns with the process-philosophical view that “the world is a process”[7]. In a 3D time cosmos, a “particle” might be understood as a kind of knot or resonance in the temporal flow. Reality becomes a story or performance rather than a sculpture. This could resolve some puzzles: for instance, instead of asking “how does a particle know what path to take” (as in quantum experiments), we might say “the particle is an unfolding temporal process exploring paths.” The implication is a shift from substance metaphysics (things in time) to process metaphysics (things are time-patterns). Philosophically, this suggests the actuality of potential: things can continually become something new because the future is not pre-contained in the present (unlike in a block universe where the future is already “there”). Thus novelty and creativity are real features of the world, not just apparent. This resonates with Whitehead’s principle of creativity and Bergson’s élan vital, giving them perhaps a concrete physical basis.
Openness of the Future and Causality: A fundamental time implies the future is genuinely open – the universe is not a fixed four-dimensional block but an unfolding process that creates new reality at each moment. This could legitimize a robust sense of free will or at least indeterminacy: the future isn’t “already written” anywhere, not even in the hidden variables of the present, because time itself is the agent of creation. In Kletetschka’s framework, with multiple time dimensions, this openness might be even richer: there may be many possible next moments (t₂ paths), and reality explores or selects among them. It’s as if the universe has a built-in ability to consider alternate histories. While that sounds dangerously close to sci-fi, the theory still maintains causality (no inconsistent loops)[42], so one can’t arbitrarily hop around in time. But it does challenge the simplistic view of one linear cause-effect chain; instead we may have a cause-effect web in a temporal volume. If confirmed, this could be a paradigm shift in causality – akin to how relativity changed our notions of space and simultaneity.
Unification of Physical Laws: If time is the primary structure, perhaps the distinctions between different forces or particles arise from how processes unfold along different temporal axes or scales. Kletetschka’s results hint at a unification where gravity, quantum mechanics, and particle physics all meet in the concept of temporal curvature and dynamics. This could solve the quantum gravity problem by saying: what we thought of as “space curvature” (gravity) is really a manifestation of time dynamics on the largest scale, and what we thought of as “quantum wavefunction” is a manifestation of time’s structure on the smallest scale – unify these by allowing time to have those different modes. It’s a speculative but thrilling idea: that the “Theory of Everything” might be a theory of time. If true, it forces a re-evaluation of space: maybe space is not fundamental at all, but a secondary, approximate phenomenon that emerges when the three time dimensions reach some equilibrium, similar to how solidity emerges from underlying particles in motion[46]. This inverts the common assumption of physics that time might emerge from space (like emergent time in some quantum gravity proposals); here space emerges from time. Such a shift would be as dramatic as recognizing that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than vice versa – it swaps the foundational role.
Cosmology and the Big Picture: In a time-centric ontology, the origin of the universe might be reinterpreted. Instead of “before the Big Bang there was nothing, not even time,” one might say the Big Bang was a special point in the temporal manifold (the “origin of time” where t₁, t₂, t₃ meet), perhaps a kind of temporal singularity or nexus. Beyond it, there may be something like a 3D temporal “expansion” that gave rise to the familiar spatial expansion. If time is fundamental and multi-dimensional, maybe what we call the Big Bang is just the beginning of one time-stream among others – raising wild questions of whether multiple “time-origin events” could exist or whether the concept of “beginning” has to be generalized. Also, if time has a multi-dimensional structure, the arrow of time (usually associated with entropy increase) might get a richer explanation: perhaps one time dimension always moves toward increasing complexity (as Barbour’s entaxy idea suggests)[34], while another oscillates or behaves cyclically. Could t₃ correspond to the thermodynamic arrow, and t₂ to some reversible quantum branching? These are speculative, but show how a time-based cosmology could open new avenues. It also dovetails with some of Barbour’s insights (even as he’s a timeless advocate): he pointed out the “Janus Point” idea that time’s arrow could be two-headed, with complexity increasing away from a low-entropy midpoint in both directions. In a 3D time, perhaps one axis could handle the symmetric aspect and another the asymmetric.
Consciousness and Experience: If temporal becoming is fundamental, it might provide a natural home for consciousness, which is inherently tied to the experience of time (no thought or awareness is truly instantaneous; they have duration and flow). Smolin argued only in a temporal-naturalist view can qualia be intrinsic aspects of matter[24]. In Kletetschka’s framework, one could speculate that perhaps mental processes involve subtler structures in the time dimensions that we haven’t recognized. For example, could t₂ or t₃ be related to the way conscious experience can entertain multiple possibilities (imagination, memory, etc.) “at the same time”? Our brains might be tapping into more than one temporal dimension – say, one keeping track of chronological sequence and another enabling mental simulation of alternatives (this is, of course, very speculative). But if time is the canvas of reality, then our subjective sense of the flow of time might not be an illusion at all, but a direct interaction with the fabric of existence. Perhaps “mind is what time does when given a complex living system,” an inversion of the usual saying that time is what clocks measure. The primacy of becoming also aligns with the idea that the self is not a static soul or substance but an ongoing narrative – as many philosophers (from Hume to Buddhists to Dennett) have suggested. Here that narrative literally is written in time.
Paradigm Shifts and Unknowns: Treating temporal becoming as fundamental certainly raises tensions and unanswered questions. For one, it challenges the deeply ingrained success of spacetime in relativity – how do we incorporate multiple times without breaking the extraordinary empirical support for relativity (which treats time as one dimension entwined with space)? Kletetschka’s theory presumably reproduces relativity in a limit (perhaps when two of the time dimensions are “small” or when certain symmetry conditions force an effective single time). But it will need to convince physicists that adding time dimensions doesn’t reintroduce fatal problems (like closed timelike curves or instability). The theory claims to maintain unitarity and causality[47], which is promising, but skepticism will remain until it’s better understood. Another tension: if we have 3 time axes, do we also have 3 “rates” of time flow? Rate is normally relative (ticks compared to another clock), so how would an observer perceive these extra time directions? It might be beyond ordinary perception – much like an insect on a 2D plane can’t directly see the third spatial dimension, we as beings embedded in one time might not directly feel the other two. This suggests the possibility that there are phenomena (maybe at quantum scales or extreme cosmic scales) that are the tell-tale evidence of multi-time structure, which Kletetschka indeed suggests (e.g., certain particle mass spectrum features, or gravitational wave patterns)[43]. It’s a paradigm shift to even conceive of measuring along another time axis. Perhaps we might detect anomalies like particles seeming to have “memory” of alternative histories, or cosmological correlations that don’t fit a single arrow of time.
Reality’s Narrative and Teleology: If time is the fundamental creative element, one could even ask if there is a kind of purpose or directionality inherent in reality. Process philosophers like Teilhard de Chardin imagined evolution as having a direction (toward increased complexity and consciousness). In a time-centric cosmos, one might speculate whether the growth of complexity (structures, life, mind) is not accidental but a natural consequence of the widening of the temporal fabric (for example, Barbour’s observation that structure grows even as entropy does – maybe one of the time dimensions promotes complexity)[34][48]. This could inject a sort of cosmic evolutionary perspective: time as fundamental might carry with it a tendency for the realization of possibilities (because if time is an active agent, it “creates” new states incessantly). While hard science must be careful with such teleological notions, it is an intriguing philosophical implication that a world where becoming is primary might inherently be a world that produces novelty and maybe even observers by its very nature.
Human Perspective and Experience: On a more humanistic level, making temporal becoming fundamental can be empowering and existentially profound. Instead of seeing ourselves as tiny objects tracing world-lines in a vast, static spacetime, we can see ourselves as participants in the unfolding of time, co-creators of reality’s future. It restores a sense of presentness and change as objectively significant. The “Now” is no longer an illusion but the cutting edge of reality where new things emerge. This aligns more with our lived experience (which physics often tells us is deceiving us). If Kletetschka is right, our intuition that the moment of now is special might correspond to the origin point where multiple time dimensions intersect – essentially the engine room of creation. This could even provide a new philosophical basis for ethics: if reality is not a timeless block but a story being written, what we do genuinely shapes what is and will be. It gives weight to process, growth, and change in all areas (personal growth, societal change, etc.) as reflections of cosmic truth rather than mere subjective feelings.

Of course, many unknowns remain. A major unknown is how precisely space emerges from time – what is the mechanism or analogy? (Kletetschka uses a higher-dimensional symmetry approach, reminiscent of how additional spatial dimensions in Kaluza-Klein theory gave rise to forces; here extra times give rise to particles and fields[49].) Another is whether multi-time can be reconciled with quantum mechanics’ need for a unitary time evolution (which normally uses one time parameter). Perhaps each time dimension corresponds to a different regime and they only unite under certain conditions, ensuring one effective time for any given interaction. Additionally, if time has three dimensions, might there be an even deeper level where space could also have hidden structures, or is space purely emergent with no independent degrees of freedom? The philosophical implications could continue: e.g., could identity (what makes me me over time) become more fluid if time is 3D? Would that imply one’s life could branch or have multiple threads in time? These verge on sci-fi scenarios (like parallel selves), but serious consideration of multi-time might require re-imagining persistence and identity.

Fearlessly speculating, one could imagine consciousness itself navigating (in a limited way) the second time dimension when we contemplate “what if” scenarios – essentially mentally visiting alternate timelines. Meanwhile, perhaps advanced cosmic phenomena (say, black holes or the early universe) might involve motion along the third time dimension, leading to effects we attribute to quantum randomness or dark energy, etc. If such wild ideas had any merit, treating time as primary could unify not just physics but also unify the material and mental realms by a common temporal fabric. We might find that things like memory, anticipation, and imagination (features of consciousness) have analogues in physical processes that involve the t₂ and t₃ directions. This is of course highly conjectural, but it illustrates how a time-centric ontology invites us to bridge disciplines: physics, philosophy of mind, cosmology, even theology (some process theologians say God evolves with time – a 3D time might be fertile ground for such ideas as well, where the divine could be seen as the sum total of temporal creativity).

In conclusion, making temporal becoming fundamental essentially means adopting the view that “Time is the substance from which all things are made,” as the poet Borges once wrote. Gunther Kletetschka’s 3D time theory gives this poetic intuition a rigorous form, suggesting that from a three-dimensional temporal manifold, the rich tapestry of particles, forces, space, and perhaps life itself, is woven. This vision stands as a grand synthesis of ancient and modern ideas: it is as if Heraclitus’s ever-living fire, Whitehead’s creative advance, and Smolin’s evolving universe all meet within a mathematical framework that physicists can test in coming years[45][43]. If the paradigm shifts in its favor, we may witness a profound transformation in our understanding: the cosmos would be seen not as a static stage or a pre-written film reel, but as an improvisational dance of time. And we, as conscious participants, are dancing along – moments of time ourselves, contributing to the universe’s ongoing becoming. Such a shift would illuminate old mysteries in new light and undoubtedly raise new questions, but it holds the promise of finally aligning the scientific image of the world with the insight that many philosophers have voiced: that reality is, at root, process, and time is the heartbeat of existence. As Kletetschka boldly states, “The path to unification might require fundamentally reconsidering the nature of physical reality itself”[44] – and treating time as three-dimensional and primary may be just that fundamental reconsideration, allowing science and philosophy to converge on a more dynamic understanding of reality than ever before.

References:

Heraclitus’s doctrine of universal flux vs. Parmenides’s static being[2].
Plato on time as the moving image of eternity (Being vs. Becoming)[4][5].
Definition of process philosophy, emphasizing becoming over static being[6].
Whitehead’s process metaphysics: reality as momentary events, not substances[7].
Bergson on real duration vs. spatialized time; time as continuous creative flow[10][12].
Heidegger’s view that time (temporality) is the horizon for understanding Being[15].
Deleuze’s affirmation that all of life is flux and the primacy of difference/becoming over identity[17][18].
Smolin’s temporal naturalism: time is real, laws evolve; contrast with timeless view[21], and only a real time can accommodate qualia (experience)[24].
Rovelli’s relational time: fundamental equations have no time variable; time and space emerge from relations (flow of time as thermodynamic)[28][29].
Barbour’s timeless universe: reality as a series of instants (Nows) with records; time as illusion caused by records[31][35].
Kletetschka’s three-dimensional time: time as primary fabric (canvas) and space as secondary (paint)[1]; preservation of causality in multi-time[42]; viewing 3D time as key to unification of physics[44].

[1] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [49] Theory Proposing Three-Dimensional Time as the “Primary Fabric of Everything” Could Unify Quantum Physics and Gravity - The Debrief

https://thedebrief.org/theory-proposing-three-dimensional-time-as-the-primary-fabric-of-everything-could-unify-quantum-physics-and-gravity/

[2] [3] Heraclitus - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus

[4] [5] Why Plato Believed Time Is Only a Shadow of Eternity | TheCollector

https://www.thecollector.com/plato-on-time-as-the-moving-image-eternal/

[6] [7] [8] [13] [14] Process Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://iep.utm.edu/processp/

[9] Halfway to the Block Universe: Whitehead's Philosophy Between ...

https://medium.com/common-sense-world/halfway-to-the-block-universe-whiteheads-philosophy-between-process-and-eternalism-823baec7ba00

[10] [11] [12] Henri Bergson and the Perception of Time | Issue 48 | Philosophy Now

https://philosophynow.org/issues/48/Henri_Bergson_and_the_Perception_of_Time

[15] [16] Martin Heidegger (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

[17] [18] [19] [20] Becoming and Difference. Gilles Deleuze and the Philosophy of… | by Tomas Byrne | Thoughts And Ideas | Medium

https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/becoming-a-life-of-pure-difference-cdca4d069847

[21] [22] [23] [24] [1310.8539] Temporal naturalism

https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8539

[25] [27] [28] [29] [30] Carlo Rovelli’s Radical Perspective on Reality | Quanta Magazine

https://www.quantamagazine.org/carlo-rovellis-radical-perspective-on-reality-20251029/

[26] The illusion of time - Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [48] Julian Barbour: timeless complexity and the records of the universe – The Occasional Informationist

https://theoccasionalinformationist.com/2024/03/02/julian-barbour-timeless-complexity-and-the-records-of-the-universe/

[37] Julian Barbour on does time exist - Physics Forums

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/julian-barbour-on-does-time-exist.638668/

[46] Is Time an Illusion? | Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-an-illusion/

[47] Three-Dimensional Time_ A Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Physics.pdf

file://file_00000000d038720e910e24a8c9d4a018

AI Assistance

ChatGPT 5.1 Pro

Philosophical Frameworks Where Change Is More Fundamental Than SpaceChatGPT

Mapping historical views to process philosophy, examining Continental thinkers, analyzing physics-influenced metaphysics, and evaluating Kletetschka's insights on time's implications for reality and cosmology.

Searched for Three-Dimensional TimeChatGPT

I'm examining the PDF's structure, considering whether it's in two parts or a partial load. Opening [0] will help determine its completeness.

Read from Three-Dimensional Time_ A Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Physics.pdfChatGPT

Starting with the first page of Kletetschka's paper PDF. I’m thinking through how to extract content for analysis, considering the challenges of copying text from a PDF.

Read from Three-Dimensional Time_ A Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Physics.pdfChatGPT

I’m figuring out the strategy, thinking through each step.

Read from Three-Dimensional Time_ A Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Physics.pdfChatGPT

The essay explores the intersection of Heraclitus' dynamic change, Whitehead's process philosophy, and Kletetschka's multi-dimensional time, examining their implications for cosmology and consciousness.

Read from Three-Dimensional Time_ A Mathematical Framework for Fundamental Physics.pdfChatGPT

Thinking about linking physics concepts with Heraclitus, maybe exploring recent philosophy blogs on multi-dimensional time. Searching "philosophy time multiple dimensions Kletetschka" could help too.

Searched for Kletetschka three-dimensional time philosophyChatGPT

I’m gathering info on news or scientific publications, considering Kletetschka's links and geographic affiliations, to contextualize conclusions on 3D time.

Read thedebrief.org

ChatGPT

Kletetschka's 3D time model treats time as a canvas and space as paint, emphasizing the fundamentality of temporality over spatiality.

Searched for Heraclitus and Parmenides philosophyChatGPT

I'm gathering info on Heraclitus and Parmenides. Wikipedia's details seem reliable. Also, considering "clearsynthesis" or "planksip" for additional insights.

Read en.wikipedia.org

ChatGPT

OK, let me see: Heraclitus highlights continuous change, while Parmenides and Plato emphasize an unchanging reality.

Time as the Primordial Fabric - Is “change” more fundamental than “where things are”?

Table of Contents

Heraclitus vs. Parmenides and Plato: Being or Becoming?

Process Philosophy: Whitehead, Bergson, and the Primacy of Becoming

Time and Change in Continental Philosophy: Heidegger and Deleuze

Physics and the Reality of Time: Smolin, Rovelli, and Barbour

Kletetschka’s Three-Dimensional Time: Reshaping Reality’s Framework

Implications: If Temporal Becoming is Fundamental

AI Assistance

Comments

Latest

The CMB Paradox: How quantum superpositions collapsed without Observers?

The CMB: In The Oldest Light , we found a message from the dawn of time.

LLM attractors and gradient descent - the source of RLHF failure?

LLM Catastrophic Failure, not just hallucinations, it's terrifying from an engineering perspective

Time as the Primordial Fabric - Is “change” more fundamental than “where things are”?

Table of Contents

Heraclitus vs. Parmenides and Plato: Being or Becoming?

Process Philosophy: Whitehead, Bergson, and the Primacy of Becoming

Time and Change in Continental Philosophy: Heidegger and Deleuze

Physics and the Reality of Time: Smolin, Rovelli, and Barbour

Kletetschka’s Three-Dimensional Time: Reshaping Reality’s Framework

Implications: If Temporal Becoming is Fundamental

AI Assistance

Comments

Related

Latest