Stoic Time: Chronos

“χρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ κόσμου διάστασις κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κόσμου κίνησιν,”
— Chrysippus

A literal, word-for-word translation reads:

“Time is of the cosmos the measurement corresponding to the motion of the cosmos.”

A polished modern interpretation:

“Time is the measure corresponding to the motion of the cosmos.”

This view aligns with Aristotle, who similarly states:

“ἀριθμὸς κινήσεως κατὰ τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον,”
which means:
“Time is the number of motions with respect to the before and after.”

Here, “number” (arithmos) denotes a measure or count, indicating that both Aristotle and the Stoics regarded time not as an independent dimension but as a construct born of humanity’s need to comprehend, organize, and predict the flux of reality (Aristotle 1999).

For the Stoics, time (chronos) held a unique metaphysical status, classified among the incorporeals (along with topos, void, and lekta). While real, time was understood as depending on the corporeal world for its significance (Long and Sedley 1987, 53E). Yet what does this imply for our modern understanding of time? Should we still see time as an inexorable, flowing, or transcendental dimension? Or can we view it as a relational tool, a means to measure and compare rates of change?

This article explores the Stoic conception of time and its surprising alignment with certain strands of modern physics, suggesting a shared relational framework rather than an absolute or transcendental one.

1. Chronos and Topos: The Linguistic and Philosophical Roots

The etymology of chronos and topos offers insight into how the Stoics (and Aristotle) approached the concepts of time and space. These ancient terms have influenced modern language, reflecting their lasting significance as systems of measurement.

1.1 Topos: Space as Framework

The Greek term topos influenced modern notions of spatial measurement, evident in words like topography (the depiction of landforms) and topology (the mathematical study of spatial properties). In Stoic thought, topos was not an absolute container but the “extension” that bodies occupy — a dynamic relationship among corporeal entities (Long 1996, p. 210). This relational concept accorded with Stoic physics, wherein the cosmos is a continuous, interdependent whole, grounded in rational order (logos).

1.2 Chronos: Time as Measurement

By contrast, chronos, typically translated as “time,” has spawned modern terms like chronology (the study of temporal sequences) and chronometer (a device for measuring time). Each derivative underscores the Stoic notion of chronos as a tool for organizing and measuring change, not an independent dimension (Long and Sedley 1987, 52E).

As an incorporeal, chronos lacks physical extension but depends on corporeal entities — namely, their motion and transformation — for its meaning (Diogenes Laertius 1925, VII.150). This perspective aligns with the modern operational view of time in physics, where it serves as a parameter to track change rather than as a substance or dimension (Rovelli 2018).

The continued influence of chronos and topos as measuring systems is evident in everyday language — phrases like “marking time” or “mapping space” reinforce the notion that these concepts are orientational tools. The Stoic relational interpretation remains pertinent, offering a coherent framework for seeing reality as an interconnected whole.

1.3 Aristotle’s View on Time: Correcting Misinterpretations

Aristotle contributed significantly to relational models of time. In Physics IV.10 (218a1), he declares:

“οὔτε γὰρ τὸ πρότερον οὔτε τὸ ὕστερον ὄντα χρόνος ἂν εἴη, ἀλλὰ μόνον τὸ νῦν, καὶ τοῦτο μετροῦμεν τῷ χρόνῳ.”

A literal translation is:

“For neither the before nor the after are being; time would not exist, but only the now, and this we measure with time.”

The critical phrase, τῷ χρόνῳ (tō chronō), is frequently mistranslated as “as time” instead of “with time,” subtly altering Aristotle’s meaning. Understood correctly, Aristotle emphasizes that chronos is a tool for measuring the present moment, not an entity that is the present itself (Coope 2005, p. 32).

“Neither the past nor the future exist; only the present is, and this we measure with time.”
— Aristotle, Physics IV.10, 218a1 (corrected translation)

This interpretation aligns with Aristotle’s broader metaphysical framework, in which time quantifies change within the eternal now. His relational model parallels Stoic ideas, highlighting a continuous tradition wherein neither past nor future possesses being — only the present endures. Time then emerges as a practical tool for quantifying and comparing the dynamics of existence, grounded in a relationality upheld by logos, prioritizing dynamism, interconnectedness, and the ever-unfolding present.

• Aristotle (1999) Physics. Trans. R. Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Coope, U. (2005) Time for Aristotle: Physics IV.10–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Diogenes Laertius (1925) Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Vol. II. Trans. R. D. Hicks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Long, A. A. (1996) Stoic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rovelli, C. (2018) The Order of Time. Trans. E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.

2. Measuring Systems, Corporealism, and Incorporealism

The Stoic philosophical framework hinges on a clear distinction between corporeals and incorporeals. Corporeals form the foundation of existence, defined by their capacity for causal interaction — they can act and be acted upon. By contrast, incorporeals, while real, subsist rather than exist, lacking causal power. They function as relational or conceptual constructs, drawing meaning and utility from the corporeal realm.

This dichotomy underlies a coherent, monistic system in which corporeals constitute the substance of reality, while incorporeals provide interpretative frameworks for navigating and understanding it. By avoiding metaphysical dualism, Stoic philosophy offers a unified vision of the cosmos, integrating both its physical and abstract dimensions (Long and Sedley 1987, 27A).

2.1 Stoic Corporealism: The Reality of Bodies

For the Stoics, bodies (somata) represent the bedrock of reality. Defined by their capacity to act and be acted upon, corporeals encompass entities with physical extension — from stones and stars to plants and animals, and even the human soul. This principle of causal interaction anchors Stoic metaphysics, wherein phenomena such as motion, transformation, and perception arise from the interplay of corporeal entities (Long 1996, p. 113).

“Only bodies act and are acted upon.”
(Diogenes Laertius 1925, VII.150)

The corporeal nature of existence extends even to qualities (poiotēs) like color, shape, and temperature. Rather than being independent entities, these qualities manifest as states or conditions of corporeal matter. For instance, the redness of an apple is not a separate existence but a particular interaction of the apple’s physical structure with light. This view illustrates the Stoic belief in the material interconnectedness of all things, where seemingly abstract phenomena are inseparable from the corporeal (Inwood and Gerson 1997, p. 130).

The soul, likewise, is corporeal in Stoic thought — often described as a fiery, material substance composed of pneuma (a vital breath or tension that unites and animates the body). By positing the soul’s materiality, the Stoics reject immaterial substances and metaphysical dualisms, affirming that all existence unfolds within the rational order (logos) of the physical cosmos (Diogenes Laertius 1925, VII.156).

2.2 Incorporeals: Real but Relational

While corporeals provide the basis of reality, the Stoics also recognized the indispensability of incorporeals (asomata) — notably time (chronos), place (topos), void, and lekta (semantic content or meaning). Though lacking causal power, these entities subsist as conceptual or relational frameworks crucial for organizing and interpreting the corporeal world.

1. Time (chronos): Not an independent entity, but a system for measuring change. It arises as a conceptual tool to sequence the before and after in the cosmos’ perpetual motion (Long and Sedley 1987, 52C).
2. Space (topos): Not an absolute container, but a relational construct describing bodies’ extension and location.
3. Void: A conceptual notion explaining the absence of body, necessary for understanding cosmic arrangements.
4. Lekta: Meanings in rational discourse, reliant on the activity of rational beings and their interaction with the corporeal realm.

“Time is a measure of motion corresponding to the cosmos’ motion.”
(Chrysippus, cited in Diogenes Laertius 1925, VII.149–150)

Lekta, while incorporeal, depend entirely on rational beings’ engagement with the corporeal world for their reality. Without such interactions, the semantic content of words and ideas would hold no actual place in existence (Inwood and Gerson 1997, p. 177).

The relational nature of incorporeals becomes clear when we consider time: without motion or change, time would be meaningless. Similarly, space presupposes the extension and presence of bodies, and lekta hinge on communicative action among rational agents. These frameworks are thus tools for interpreting the cosmos, not autonomous realities.

“Incorporeals subsist rather than exist.”
(Diogenes Laertius 1925, VII.150)

This pragmatic approach highlights the Stoics’ commitment to aligning human understanding with the observable cosmos, where incorporeals serve as conceptual systems for navigating a dynamic, corporeal reality.

2.3 The Primacy of the Corporeal and the Role of the Incorporeal

For the Stoics, corporeals — matter, physical bodies, and their interactions — form the necessary basis of existence. Without corporeal entities, incorporeals like time, space, and meaning would lack a substrate from which to emerge:

• Enabling Phenomena: Corporeals are the substrate for all processes — motion, perception, and transformation.
• Secondary Yet Vital: Incorporeals, though not primary, allow rational beings to organize their existence in harmony with the universal logos.

Amplifying Human Experience

1. Time helps humans plan and coordinate actions.
2. Space (topos) offers a framework for understanding location and extension.
3. Lekta enable abstract thought, creativity, and shared knowledge.

These incorporeal systems enhance human interaction with the cosmos, facilitating a deeper alignment with logos. They lift us beyond instinct-driven existence, enabling the intellectual and cultural achievements characteristic of humankind (Long 1996, p. 217).

This integration of corporeals and incorporeals underpins a pragmatic monism. Corporeals make up the physical reality in which change occurs, while incorporeals supply tools for interpreting and navigating that reality — without introducing unnecessary metaphysical dualisms or transcendental dimensions.

“The logos pervades all things, ensuring that change unfolds in harmony with the rational structure of the cosmos.”
(Marcus Aurelius, Meditations IV.40)

Interestingly, the Stoic view of time as an incorporeal measure resonates with how modern physics treats time: as a relational parameter contingent on the state and motion of physical systems, rather than an absolute, traversable dimension (Rovelli 2018).

By recognizing chronos as a measure of change, the Stoics and modern science converge on a conceptual framework that sees time as emergent from corporeal interactions — further underscoring the enduring relevance of Stoic metaphysics.

• Diogenes Laertius (1925) Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Vol. II. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Inwood, B. and Gerson, L. (1997) Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings. 2nd edn. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
• Long, A. A. (1996) Stoic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rovelli, C. (2018) The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.

3. Chronos and Modern Physics

The concept of time has long served as a cornerstone in physics, woven into theories that aim to unravel the structure of reality. Traditionally conceived as a transcendental “fourth dimension,” time is frequently imagined as a stage on which changes unfold or a physical entity through which we travel. Such views are further muddled by linguistic metaphors, like “time flowing,” which risk conflating abstract constructs with tangible phenomena (Barbour 1999).

However, closer scrutiny of how time is utilized in science, especially in physics, suggests a different picture. Time, in scientific practice, is fundamentally a measurement system rooted in cyclical processes. Stoic philosophy, which regards chronos as an incorporeal measure of motion dependent on corporeals, echoes this modern operational view of time (Long and Sedley 1987, 52D).

Across various branches of physics — classical mechanics, relativity, and quantum mechanics — time appears as a parameter for quantifying and comparing rates of change rather than as an independent dimension. This section explores how Stoic metaphysics and contemporary science converge on a relational understanding of time, highlighting chronos as a valuable framework for interpreting physical processes.

3.1 Measuring Change in Physics

Modern physics defines time through the measurement of periodic phenomena. Units like seconds and days derive from regular cycles — such as the oscillations of a cesium-133 atom or the Earth’s rotation on its axis:

1 second = 9,192,631,770 oscillations of radiation of the cesium-133 atom (BIPM 2019).

Time thus emerges from tracking and quantifying cycles, establishing a standard against which other processes can be measured. This practice underscores that time is not an entity in its own right but a relational tool — a system for comparing and organizing changes across different reference frames (Rovelli 2018).

1. Classical Mechanics: Newton’s laws treat time as a variable describing how positions and velocities evolve (Newton 1687).
2. Quantum Mechanics: Time tracks the evolution of quantum states, but remains an external parameter rather than a substantial dimension (Sakurai and Napolitano 2017).
3. Relativity: Time tracks variations in rates of change under different conditions of motion or gravity; is not used as a traversable dimension in equations (Einstein 1916).

Crucially, no experimental evidence supports the idea of time as a traversable dimension. Observed effects, like time dilation in particle accelerators or in GPS satellite clocks, reflect how processes occur at different rates under velocity or gravitational influences (Hafele and Keating 1972; Ashby 2003). These effects align with the Stoic perspective that time quantifies change rather than flowing independently.

“Time is the measure corresponding to the motion of the cosmos.”
(Chrysippus, cited in Diogenes Laertius 1925, VII.149–150)

When physicists input time into their equations, they consistently employ it as a relational construct describing how processes evolve relative to one another. This viewpoint echoes the Stoic conception of chronos as an incorporeal measure rooted in corporeal interactions (Long 1996, p. 149).

3.2 Relativity: Time as a Measure of Change

Einstein’s theory of relativity profoundly reoriented our understanding of time by introducing time dilation — the observation that the “speed” of change depends on relative motion or gravitational potential:

1. Relative Motion: Clocks on fast-moving spacecraft tick more slowly relative to those on Earth.
2. Gravitational Potential: Clocks closer to massive objects run more slowly than those farther away (Einstein 1905; 1916).

Often interpreted as evidence of a four-dimensional spacetime, relativity’s equations do not necessarily require time to be an absolute dimension. Instead, they describe how rates of change — such as the ticking of clocks or biological processes — vary under different frames of reference. The result is a picture where time is not something that “stretches” or “flows,” but a tool for comparing how processes unfold.

This interpretation aligns with the Stoic view of chronos as a relational measure (Long and Sedley 1987, 52E). Time dilation illustrates how the rate of change in physical processes differs, rather than implying that time itself behaves like a physical dimension.

3.3 Quantum Mechanics: Time as an Operational Parameter

In quantum mechanics, time emerges not as a dimension but as an operational parameter:

• Schrödinger Equation: Describes how the quantum state of a system evolves over “time,” with “t” serving as a reference for sequential change (Sakurai and Napolitano 2017).
• Superposition: A particle existing in multiple states collapses upon measurement; the “time” of collapse marks when the change is observed, not a traversal through time.
• Entanglement: Instantaneous correlations between particles defy classical notions of linear time, resonating with a Stoic vision of a unified cosmos governed by logos.

From a Stoic standpoint, quantum phenomena like entanglement support the idea that change occurs within a coherent present. The “time” parameter indicates when we measure or observe changes, rather than an absolute medium in which particles move.

3.4 Stoic Physics in Dialogue with Modern Science

Modern physics’ relational treatment of time strongly parallels the Stoic conception of chronos. Both approaches reject the notion of time as an absolute, traversable dimension, instead framing it as a relational tool contingent on change (Rovelli 2018). Key points of convergence include:

• Relativity and Stoicism: Relativity emphasizes how time depends on reference frames, consistent with Stoicism’s assertion that time measures motion rather than existing independently.
• Quantum Mechanics and Logos: Quantum principles, like entanglement, evoke the Stoic notion of a cosmos interconnected by logos, where processes unfold within a unified present.

By favoring a relational view, both Stoic philosophy and modern physics avoid the pitfalls of positing time as a fixed, overarching dimension. This stance applies Occam’s Razor, simplifying our understanding of time by grounding it in corporeal processes — a perspective that harmonizes with the Stoic dedication to logos as the rational order of change.

• Ashby, N. (2003) ‘Relativity in the Global Positioning System.’ Living Reviews in Relativity, 6(1). DOI: 10.12942/lrr-2003–1
• Barbour, J. (1999) The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Diogenes Laertius (1925) Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Vol. II. Translated by R. D. Hicks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Einstein, A. (1905) ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.’ Annalen der Physik, 17(10), 891–921.
• Einstein, A. (1916) ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.’ Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769–822.
• Hafele, J. C. and Keating, R. E. (1972) ‘Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains.’ Science, 177(4044), 166–168.
• Long, A. A. (1996) Stoic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Newton, I. (1687) Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London: Royal Society.
• Rovelli, C. (2018) The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.
• Sakurai, J. J. and Napolitano, J. (2017) Modern Quantum Mechanics. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. The Eternal Present of Stoic Time

“The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it.”
— Marcus Aurelius (2006, IV.3)

The Stoic view of chronos as a relational construct embedded in the unfolding present moment offers a timeless model for understanding the cosmos. By examining its linguistic roots, metaphysical underpinnings, and parallels with modern physics, we discover a conception of time that resonates across centuries, anticipating relational models of time in contemporary scientific thought.

At the core of Stoic philosophy lies logos, the rational principle governing the universe. For the Stoics, logos is both immanent and universal, ensuring that all change follows a coherent, rational order (Long and Sedley 1987, 44B). From this ordered unfolding of change emerges time, an incorporeal construct rather than a metaphysical force.

4.1 Logos, Time, and Change

Time, under the Stoic framework, does not serve as a transcendental dimension but arises from the cosmos’s intrinsic rationality. The so-called “arrow of time” is not a fundamental entity; rather, it reflects the natural progression and interdependence of physical processes. This insight aligns with aspects of modern thermodynamics, where the increase of entropy provides a directional framework without implying time as an absolute dimension (Rovelli 2018).

“All things are woven together and the common bond is sacred… the whole is one, made up of all things, and one is all things.”
— Marcus Aurelius (2006, VII.9)

This unity of change and rational order epitomizes the Stoic belief in a single, interconnected organism. Time, as a measure of that change, emerges as a human abstraction reflecting this cosmic unity.

4.2 Practical Implications: Embracing the Eternal Present

The Stoic understanding of time carries profound ethical and practical dimensions. By anchoring existence in the present, Stoicism encourages living in harmony with the natural flow of change, seeing the eternal now as the site of transformation.

Marcus Aurelius succinctly advises:

“Confine yourself to the present. Understand that everything is in a state of constant change, and live according to nature.” (Aurelius 2006, VIII.36)

In a modern world preoccupied with future anxieties and past regrets, recognizing time as a measure of change fosters:

1. Mindfulness: Focusing on the present moment reduces distraction and nurtures clear awareness.
2. Intentionality: Highlighting the now promotes deliberate and meaningful action.
3. Resilience: Accepting the fluid nature of existence strengthens adaptability and peace of mind.

Under the Stoic view, the present is not merely fleeting but the stage where logos unfolds, affording human beings the chance to act in accordance with reason (Long 1996, p. 184).

4.3 Bridging Ancient Philosophy and Modern Science

The Stoic model of chronos bridges ancient metaphysics and contemporary science, integrating philosophical insight with empirical understanding. By treating time as an incorporeal measure of change, the Stoics anticipated modern theories emphasizing relational and operational concepts of time.

1. Stoicism and Relativity: Both frameworks recognize that time is relational, depending on the interactions of physical systems rather than existing independently (Einstein 1916).
2. Stoicism and Changism: The Stoic emphasis on fundamental change resonates with Changism’s rejection of time as a traversable dimension, affirming its function as a conceptual tool for quantifying motion (Rovelli 2018).

By acknowledging the impermanence of existence, Stoicism avoids linear notions of time, encouraging an eternal present as a source of meaning and purpose.

“True happiness is to enjoy the present, without anxious dependence upon the future, not to amuse ourselves with either hopes or fears, but to rest satisfied with what we have.”
— Seneca (2010, Ep. 98)

This sentiment reflects the Stoic ethos of living rationally within a ceaseless flow of change, wherein the present is the anchor of existence.

In recognizing chronos as a relational measure instead of a transcendental dimension, the Stoics forged an enduring vision of time that harmonizes with both modern science and Changism. They depict a universe governed by logos, where all change unfolds within the eternal present, and time arises as a tool for understanding that process.

This philosophical insight, validated by the parallels in relativity and quantum mechanics, calls us to engage life fully in the present. By cultivating mindfulness, intentionality, and resilience, we align ourselves with the cosmos’s rational order and find freedom in the ever-unfolding now — the true canvas of existence.

• Aurelius, M. (2006) Meditations. Translated by M. Hammond. London: Penguin Classics.
• Einstein, A. (1916) ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.’ Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769–822.
• Long, A. A. (1996) Stoic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rovelli, C. (2018) The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.
• Seneca (2010) Letters from a Stoic. Translated by R. Campbell. London: Penguin Classics.

Appendix A: Relativity

The advent of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity in the early 20th century revolutionized the understanding of time and space, uniting them into a single four-dimensional continuum known as spacetime (Einstein 1905; Einstein 1916). This fusion marked a departure from Newtonian absolute time, introducing concepts that would reshape physics profoundly.

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (1905) demonstrates that measurements of time and space are relative to the motion of the observer. One of the key revelations is the relativity of simultaneity — the idea that events perceived as simultaneous in one frame of reference may not be so in another moving at a different velocity (Einstein 1905).

The Lorentz Transformation

The Lorentz transformation describes how coordinates (including time) change for observers moving at constant velocity relative to each other. The transformation for time is:

This equation shows how rates of change (as measured by the operational time t) differ for observers in relative motion. It doesn’t imply that time itself flows differently, but rather that processes — like the ticking of clocks or the movement of objects — are measured differently depending on the observer’s velocity. The rate at which things change is affected by relative motion, and time simply provides a way of comparing how quickly or slowly these changes are happening for different observers.

Time Dilation

Time dilation describes how a clock moving at velocity vvv relative to a stationary observer ticks more slowly:

This equation shows that the rate of change of processes in the moving frame is slower compared to the stationary frame. For example, the processes governing the movement of a clock or the biological processes in a person will occur at a slower rate when observed from a frame of reference in relative motion. Here, time acts as a tool for tracking how quickly or slowly these processes unfold relative to a standard (stationary) reference frame. Time is not something that stretches or flows differently; it is a measure of the changing rate of processes due to relative velocity.

The Spacetime Interval

The spacetime interval between two events is:

where ds is the spacetime separation, dt is the time difference, and dx,dy,dz are the spatial differences.

This equation describes how spatial and temporal changes relate to each other. The term dtdtdt represents the operational time — how we measure the interval between events in terms of processes such as clock ticks. The spacetime interval ds helps us describe the relationship between changes in position and changes in what we call time. Time here doesn’t flow as a fundamental dimension; instead, it serves as a way to measure the rate at which spatial relations change between events.

Gravitational Time Dilation

This equation shows how the rate of change of processes (like the ticking of clocks or biological aging) slows down in stronger gravitational fields. Time here measures how the presence of a massive object affects the rate at which processes unfold. Clocks near the massive object tick more slowly because the processes driving the clock are happening at a slower rate due to the influence of gravity. Time doesn’t flow differently; it merely tracks how the rate of changes in the system varies in different gravitational environments.

The Energy-Momentum Relation

In special relativity, the relation between energy, momentum, and mass is:

This equation connects the changes in momentum (which represents motion) and rest energy (which represents the potential for change) in a system. The equation shows how energy is distributed between the motion of an object and its intrinsic mass. Time serves as a reference to describe how fast processes related to momentum (like motion) and mass unfold, but it’s not fundamental to the equation itself. Instead, time helps us track how the distribution of energy across these components evolves over time.

In all these equations, time serves as a measure of the rate of change of physical processes rather than as a dimension in which things move or flow. The equations describe how different rates of change (like the ticking of clocks, the movement of objects, or the unfolding of energy) vary under different conditions of motion and gravity. Time is simply a tool to measure and compare how these changes occur, not a fundamental aspect of reality.

Einstein, A. (1905). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Annalen der Physik, 17(10), 891–921.

Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769–822.

Hafele, J. C., and Keating, R. E. (1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains.” Science, 177(4044), 168–170.

Minkowski, H. (1908). “Space and Time.” In The Principle of Relativity (1923), translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery. New York: Dover Publications.

Appendix B: Time in Quantum Mechanics: A Parameter of Change

Unlike classical mechanics and relativity, where time often intertwines with spatial dimensions or acts as a backdrop for events, quantum mechanics treats time distinctly — as an external parameter governing the evolution of systems.

The Schrödinger Equation

The time-dependent Schrödinger equation is the cornerstone of non-relativistic quantum mechanic:

In this equation, time represents the rate of change of the system’s wave function, which evolves according to the system’s energy. Time is not an inherent dimension flowing forward; instead, it’s the parameter we use to track how the probabilities of finding the system in certain states evolve. The wave function ψ(r,t) changes over time, and the time variable t helps us measure how fast this change occurs.

• Energy drives the evolution of the system, and time simply tracks the rate at which the wave function changes in response to that energy.
• Time is not a fundamental feature of reality; it’s a tool for understanding how the quantum state changes as the system evolves.

The Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation

The time-independent Schrödinger equation is used when the system’s Hamiltonian does not explicitly depend on time:

In this case, time doesn’t appear explicitly because the system is in a stationary state — its energy does not change. The wave function ψ(r) describes the spatial distribution of the system’s quantum state. Here, time is implicit in the sense that we’re dealing with a system that isn’t evolving dynamically over time.

• Time would enter if we were tracking how the system evolves from one energy state to another, but in this specific equation, we’re looking at an energy eigenstate where nothing changes in time.
• The absence of time here indicates that we are not concerned with the rate of change in this scenario; the system is stable in a specific energy state.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

One of the most famous results in quantum mechanics is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle:

The Probability Interpretation: Born Rule

The Born rule tells us how to interpret the wave function ψ\psiψ in terms of probabilities:

In this equation, time represents the moment at which we’re measuring the probability of finding a particle in a particular location. Time isn’t a dimension in which the particle exists or flows; it’s simply the moment when the measurement occurs. The wave function evolves in time, and the probability distribution changes accordingly.

• The probability of finding a particle at a given position changes over time, and time ttt is the parameter we use to track how that probability changes.
• Time is a measuring stick for tracking how the system’s probabilities evolve, not a physical dimension in which the particle exists.

Feynman’s Path Integral Formulation

In the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics (developed by Richard Feynman), the probability amplitude for a particle to go from point A to point B is the sum over all possible paths:

Time in this framework enters as part of the action S, which is the quantity that dictates how the system changes. The paths represent possible ways the system could evolve between two points, and time helps us compare how the system changes along each possible path.

• Time is used to measure how the action S accumulates as the particle moves through space, but it is not treated as a flowing entity.
• The action describes the evolution of the system, and time serves as a parameter that helps describe the rate of change along different paths.

The Commutation Relation

In quantum mechanics, observables like position and momentum do not commute, meaning:

This commutation relation is fundamental to the quantum nature of particles, indicating that position and momentum cannot be simultaneously known with infinite precision.

Interpretation:

This equation describes the inherent quantum uncertainty in measuring position and momentum, and time indirectly influences this through the dynamics of the system. Time doesn’t appear explicitly here, but it’s implied in how these quantities change in time during the evolution of the system.

• Time would be used to track how changes in position and momentum occur during measurements.
• The commutation relation reflects how changes in one observable affect the other, and time is the scale we use to measure those changes when we observe the system’s dynamics.

Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

The quantum harmonic oscillator is described by the solution to the time-independent Schrödinger equation for a harmonic potential:

Here, the energy levels E​ are quantized, and the wave function describes the state of the system in a potential well. Time would enter if we were describing how the state evolves dynamically, but in this time-independent case, we are only concerned with the energy levels and spatial wave functions.

• If we wanted to describe how the wave function evolves, we would use time as a parameter to track how the probability distribution changes.
• Time is not fundamental here; it would be used as a tool for measuring the rate at which the system evolves from one state to another.

In the quantum mechanical framework, time consistently appears as a parameter used to track how quantum states, observables, and probabilities change. The fundamental entities are the wave function, energy, and observables, while time provides a way to measure how these evolve.

• Time doesn’t flow independently; it’s a tool we use to describe how the quantum state or the system’s properties evolve over different processes.
• In all cases, the equations describe the rate of change in the system, with time acting as the operational parameter that allows us to compare how fast or slowly these changes occur.

Busch, P. (1990). “The Time-Energy Uncertainty Relation.” In Time in Quantum Mechanics, edited by J. G. Muga, R. Sala Mayato, and Í. L. Egusquiza. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper & Row.

Kuchař, K. V. (1992). “Time and Interpretations of Quantum Gravity.” In Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, edited by G. Kunstatter, D. E. Vincent, and J. G. Williams. Singapore: World Scientific.

Pauli, W. (1933). “General Principles of Quantum Mechanics.” In Handbuch der Physik, Vol. 24, Part 1. Berlin: Springer.

Sakurai, J. J., and Napolitano, J. (2017). Modern Quantum Mechanics. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix C: Newton’s Equations

In the framework of classical mechanics established by Sir Isaac Newton, time is conceived as absolute, true, and mathematical, flowing uniformly regardless of the external universe (Newton 1687). Newton articulates this in his Principia Mathematica:

“Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external…” (Newton 1687, p. 6).

This conception positions time as an independent backdrop against which all physical events occur, separate from the spatial dimensions and unaffected by the material contents of the universe.

The Characteristics of Newtonian Time

• Uniform Flow: Time progresses at a constant rate, identical for all observers, regardless of their state of motion or position in space.
• Independence from Matter: Time exists independently of the physical processes happening within it; it is not influenced by matter or energy.
• Universal Synchronization: Clocks everywhere in the universe can, in principle, be synchronized to this absolute time, reflecting a shared temporal reality.

However, The Actual Equations Tell a Different Story:

Newton’s Second Law of Motion:

Newton’s equation describes how the rate of change of velocity (acceleration) responds to an applied force. The term time t, as used in the equation, is understood operationally — it represents the tool by which we measure the rate at which changes in position occur, not a fundamental dimension in which objects exist or move.

• Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, which itself is the rate of change of position. Time t is the scale we use to track these changes.
• t does not need to be interpreted as a flowing background through which the object moves, but simply as the yardstick for quantifying the sequence of changes in the system’s state (Occam’s Razor).

In other words, in the equation time is not viewed as a dimension that objects move through. Instead, it’s a parameter that describes the rate at which changes happen in response to forces.

Velocity:

Velocity describes how quickly the position of an object is changing. Here, t represents the measurement tool used to quantify this change in position. The operational time t tracks the rate of change in the system, but it’s not considered a dimension or a separate entity flowing alongside space.

• Velocity is the ratio of change in position x compared to a standard process (tracked by the operational time t).
• Time is just the parameter we use to compare how fast different things are changing. In practical terms, this means that different objects or systems have different rates of change, and time is used as the scale to express those differences.

Acceleration:

Acceleration represents how the rate of change of velocity is itself changing. Time t, again, is just a parameter that we use to keep track of this rate of change. Time does not flow; rather, the velocity of the object changes in relation to some other process, which we measure using operational time t.

• Acceleration is explained as a second-order change: the velocity changes in relation to a standard measuring process, and time t is that standard for comparison.
• There’s no need to invoke time as an independent, flowing dimension; instead, the focus is entirely on how changes evolve relative to some reference process.

Equations of Motion (Constant Acceleration)

The classical equations of motion, such as:

This equation describes how an object’s position changes as a result of its initial velocity and constant acceleration. The variable time t here represents the measurement tool we use to track how quickly the object’s position changes due to acceleration. The term t² appears because we’re describing how acceleration (a second-order change) affects the position.

• t is understood operationally: we compare the change in position and velocity to a reference process (such as an oscillating clock), and that’s what t represents.
• This equation accurately describes how the rates of change in position and velocity combine under constant acceleration. The difference is that time isn’t seen as a dimension through which the object moves, but as the scale we use to measure these changes.

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

In this equation, time does not appear explicitly. However, to apply this law to dynamic systems (such as planets orbiting a star), we would use time to track the motion of the objects as they respond to gravitational forces. In this context, time t is a measurement tool that tracks how the positions of the masses change due to gravitational attraction. The process of motion (e.g., a planet moving in orbit) is what’s fundamental, and time t is the reference we use to compare that motion.

Time t is understood as a practical measure of change rather than a fundamental entity or dimension. The key difference from standard interpretations lies in how physicists interpret the role of time. In this model:

• Newton’s laws treat time purely as a rate-tracking tool. It’s used to measure how quickly systems evolve, not as something that flows or exists independently of change.
• The operational definition of time (as the measure of the rate of change) provides a consistent way to understand time’s role in Newtonian mechanics while maintaining the predictive power of the equations.

Even though the equations clearly show that time is a parameter to measure change, the language of Newtonian mechanics pushes the notion of time as a flowing river, an ever-present stage on which the drama of physics unfolds. Terms like “time intervals,” “duration,” and “temporal progression” permeate the discourse, embedding the concept of absolute time deeply into the scientific mindset.

Newton’s absolute time exemplifies how linguistic and conceptual frameworks can solidify into accepted so called “truths”, veiling more acurate alternative interpretations. By treating time as an independent entity, Newtonian mechanics downplay the role of change as the fundamental process.

Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London: Royal Society.

Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.

Appendix D: Critical Review of the Block Universe

The block universe, or eternalism, presents time as a dimension like space, where past, present, and future coexist within a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. This view, drawn from a literal interpretation of Minkowski’s spacetime in relativity, suggests that the flow of time is an illusion and that all events are fixed. However, a key issue with this model is its failure to explain the dynamism of our lived experience. If all moments in time exist statically, the perception of change and time’s flow is illusory, leading to circular reasoning: the illusion of change itself needs an explanation. Since even the neural processes producing this illusion would be static, the model cannot account for how this illusion arises, resulting in an infinite regress. Without recognizing real change, the block universe cannot explain our experience of time.

Moreover, the block universe posits that we perceive time’s passage by moving through it, yet movement implies change. This introduces a paradox — movement within a static framework contradicts the block universe’s premise of fixed moments, leaving the experience of progression through time unexplainable. This issue may stem from linguistic and conceptual confusions, similar to those addressed by Changism, which argues that reifying time as a dimension conflates mathematical abstraction with reality. Terms like “spacetime continuum” may lead us to mistakenly interpret time as a physical entity instead of a parameter that measures change.

In contrast, process philosophy and presentism offer alternative views that emphasize change and the primacy of the present. Process philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead argue that reality is made up of events and processes in constant flux, with time as a measure of this progression. Presentism, meanwhile, holds that only the present exists, aligning with common-sense experience. In physics, presentism accommodates relativistic effects like time dilation by interpreting them as variations in the rate of change under different conditions, such as varying speeds or gravitational fields.

One common objection to presentism is its apparent conflict with relativity, which lacks a universal present moment due to the relativity of simultaneity. However, Changism reconciles this by distinguishing between time and change, suggesting that relativistic effects reflect differences in change rates rather than evidence of time as a dimension. This allows presentism to align with relativity’s empirical predictions without endorsing the block universe.

The block universe also struggles to account for emergent phenomena, which arise from dynamic processes and interactions, such as consciousness, ecosystems, or economic markets. Emergence requires genuine change and development over time, which a static model cannot represent. By contrast, Changism, rooted in presentism and process philosophy, embraces dynamism as central to reality, with time serving as a measure of continuous change. This approach aligns both with subjective experience and empirical observations, avoiding the contradictions of static models.

Einstein’s theory of relativity is often linked to the block universe, but his views on time were more nuanced. He acknowledged the difficulty of reconciling the subjective experience of time with the relativistic framework, famously calling the distinction between past, present, and future a “stubbornly persistent illusion.” However, this was more a philosophical reflection than an endorsement of a static model. Einstein also recognized the limitations of physical theories in capturing the entirety of reality.

In conclusion, the block universe’s static treatment of time faces significant challenges in explaining dynamism, emergent phenomena, and our subjective experience of time. Process philosophy and presentism, as embodied in Changism, offer a more coherent and empirically grounded model by focusing on change as fundamental. By redefining time as a measure of change, Changism preserves the predictive power of relativity while avoiding the contradictions of static models, promoting a more accurate and dynamic interpretation of the universe.

Bedau, M. A. (1997). “Weak Emergence.” Philosophical Perspectives, 11, 375–399.

Bigelow, J. (1996). “Presentism and Properties.” Philosophical Perspectives, 10, 35–52.

Craig, W. L. (2001). Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Einstein, A. (1949). “Autobiographical Notes.” In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, edited by P. A. Schilpp, 1–95. La Salle: Open Court.

Einstein, A. (1955). Letter to the Besso family, quoted in Holton, G. (1973). Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Esfeld, M. (1999). “Quantum Holism and the Philosophy of Mind.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11–12), 23–38.

Maudlin, T. (2002). Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

McTaggart, J. M. E. (1908). “The Unreality of Time.” Mind, 17(68), 457–474.

Petkov, V. (2005). “Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?” Philosophy and Foundations of Physics, 1, 207–228.

Putnam, H. (1967). “Time and Physical Geometry.” Journal of Philosophy, 64(8), 240–247.

Rietdijk, C. W. (1966). “A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity.” Philosophy of Science, 33(4), 341–344.

Skow, B. (2012). “Why Does Time Pass?” Noûs, 46(2), 223–242.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality. New York: Macmillan.

Appendix E: The Space-Change Continuum: Replacing Time with Change

The Changist model emphasizes change as the fundamental process driving reality, with time serving as a parameter to measure this change. Building upon this perspective, the concept of the Space-Change Continuum (SCC) offers a coherent framework that further elucidates how replacing time with change resolves conceptual contradictions, particularly those associated with the block universe model. This appendix explores the Space-Change Continuum, integrating philosophical insights from Aristotle with modern physics, and demonstrates how this approach aligns with empirical observations while providing a more consistent metaphysical foundation.

The Semantic Shift: Change as a Fundamental Dimension

The key issue with the block universe model is its treatment of time as a fixed dimension in which past, present, and future coexist simultaneously (Rietdijk 1966; Putnam 1967). This perspective leads to paradoxes and contradictions, especially when accounting for dynamism and causality (McTaggart 1908). By shifting the focus from “time” to “change” as the primary dimension of reality, these contradictions dissolve. Instead of viewing time as a linear entity through which we “travel,” we recognize change as the core process driving reality (Heraclitus, as cited in Kirk et al. 1983).

The Space-Change Continuum Framework

In the Space-Change Continuum, the universe consists of:

• Three Spatial Dimensions: Length, width, and height define where things are in space.
• One Change Dimension: Change replaces time as the fundamental dimension, representing the evolution and transformation of entities according to their nature and physical laws.

This framework posits that objects and systems do not move along a temporal axis but evolve or change according to their intrinsic properties and the governing laws of physics (Barbour 1999).

Integration with Relativity

How Change Replaces Time in Relativity: Einstein’s theory of relativity traditionally describes events in a four-dimensional spacetime continuum, treating time as intertwined with space (Einstein 1905; Minkowski 1908). By reinterpreting time as change, relativistic effects can be understood as variations in the rate of change due to factors like velocity and gravitational fields.

• Time Dilation as Rate of Change Variation: In special relativity, time dilation describes how moving clocks tick slower compared to stationary ones. By viewing this as a difference in the rate of change, we understand that high velocities affect the internal processes of objects, causing them to change more slowly relative to an observer at rest (Rovelli 2018).
• Δτ=γ−1Δt
• where Δτ is the proper time (rate of change for the moving object), Δtis the coordinate time for the stationary observer, and γ is the Lorentz factor.
• Gravitational Time Dilation: In general relativity, stronger gravitational fields slow down the rate of change in processes. Objects in intense gravitational fields experience slower rates of change due to the curvature of space affecting physical interactions (Einstein 1916; Misner et al. 1973).

By replacing “time” with “change,” these phenomena are understood as variations in how quickly systems evolve, not as movement through a temporal dimension.

Causality in the Space-Change Continuum

Causality is reframed as the transformation of potential into actuality through structured change (Aristotle, Metaphysics, translated by Ross 1924). Instead of ordering events in time, causality involves the sequential unfolding of changes, where each present state contains the potential for future transformations.

• Physical Laws as Governing Forms: The laws of physics dictate the form of these transformations, describing how entities change based on their nature (Davies 1995).
• Eliminating Temporal Paradoxes: By grounding causality in change, we avoid paradoxes associated with time travel and predestination inherent in the block universe model (Price 1996).

For example, a ball rolling down a hill is changing according to the laws of gravity and motion. Its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy through the process of change dictated by physical laws (Halliday et al. 2013).

Aristotle’s Concepts: Potentiality and Actuality

Aristotle’s philosophy provides a foundation for understanding change in the SCC:

• Potentiality (dynamis) refers to the possible ways an entity or system can change based on its nature and conditions (Aristotle, Metaphysics).
• Actuality (energeia) is the realization of these potentials through change.

The laws of physics describe how potential becomes actuality, governing the specific forms of change for different entities (Heisenberg 1958). This perspective aligns with quantum mechanics, where particles exist in superpositions of potential states that become actualized upon observation (Cohen-Tannoudji et al. 1977).

The Form of Change and the Nature of Objects

Different entities undergo change according to their inherent properties and governing laws:

• Subatomic Particles: Change according to quantum mechanics, evolving through probabilistic interactions (Dirac 1930).
• Celestial Bodies: Change according to gravitational laws, following trajectories determined by mass and spacetime curvature (Misner et al. 1973).
• Biological Systems: Change through processes governed by genetics and environmental interactions, as described in evolutionary biology (Mayr 2001).

This interpretation ties change directly to the rational nature of the object or entitie experiencing change, meaning that change follows the form embedded in the entity’s properties and interactions (Prigogine 1980).

Resolving Contradictions in the Block Universe

By adopting the SCC, we address key contradictions inherent in the block universe model:

• Dynamic Change vs. Static Time: The block universe posits a static spacetime where all events are fixed, yet it invokes dynamic processes to explain the experience of change (Skow 2012). The SCC recognizes change as fundamental, eliminating the need for paradoxical explanations.
• Causality without Determinism: In the block universe, causality is problematic due to the coexistence of past, present, and future. The SCC frames causality as the structured unfolding of change, preserving causal relationships without implying a predetermined sequence of events (Price 1996).
• Avoiding Infinite Regress: The block universe’s reliance on illusions to explain change leads to infinite regress. By acknowledging change as the basis of reality, the SCC avoids this issue entirely (Esfeld 1999).

Conclusion: The Space-Change Continuum

The Space-Change Continuum offers a coherent and empirically grounded understanding of reality that aligns with modern physics and the Changist model. In this framework:

• Change is Fundamental: Entities evolve and actualize potential according to their nature.
• Physical Laws as Forms: The laws of physics represent the forms governing the transformation of potential into actuality.
• Causality through Change: Causality is the structured unfolding of changes, grounded in the properties of entities and their interactions.

By replacing time with change as the fundamental dimension alongside space, we resolve conceptual paradoxes and align our understanding with both empirical observations and philosophical insights.

Aristotle. (1924). Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., and Laloë, F. (1977). Quantum Mechanics. Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Wiley.

Davies, P. (1995). About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Einstein, A. (1905). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Annalen der Physik, 17(10), 891–921.

Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769–822.

Esfeld, M. (1999). “Quantum Holism and the Philosophy of Mind.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(11–12), 23–38.

Halliday, D., Resnick, R., and Walker, J. (2013). Fundamentals of Physics. 10th edn. Hoboken: Wiley.

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper & Row.

Heraclitus. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts. 2nd edn., edited by G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.

McTaggart, J. M. E. (1908). “The Unreality of Time.” Mind, 17(68), 457–474.

Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., and Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Minkowski, H. (1908). “Space and Time.” In The Principle of Relativity (1923), translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery. New York: Dover Publications.

Price, H. (1996). Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. New York: Oxford University Press.

Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Putnam, H. (1967). “Time and Physical Geometry.” Journal of Philosophy, 64(8), 240–247.

Rietdijk, C. W. (1966). “A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity.” Philosophy of Science, 33(4), 341–344.

Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Translated by E. Segre and S. Carnell. New York: Riverhead Books.

Skow, B. (2012). “Why Does Time Pass?” Noûs, 46(2), 223–242.

Appendix F: The Goddesses of Change: Kali and Persephone as Embodiments of Entropy and Self-Organization

There is something primal in the way ancient cultures understood change, in how they gazed at the abyss and saw the dance of gods. In the chaotic heart of transformation, Kali and Persephone rise like the twin Goddesses of Change, each an embodiment of forces both destructive and creative. Kali, the dark goddess of the Indian pantheon, is entropy made flesh. Persephone, queen of the Greek underworld, is the cycle of death and rebirth incarnate. Together, these figures tear through the veil of order and reveal the unrelenting churn of the cosmos, much like the Changist model, where change alone is the eternal pulse driving everything. They are not symbols of comfort but mirrors to the truth — change is inevitable, and it cares not for the fragile notions of permanence that haunt men’s dreams.

Kali

Kali doesn’t arrive quietly. She crashes into the scene, a storm of limbs and laughter, her eyes gleaming with the inevitability of endings. Time itself quivers under her gaze, for Kali is the goddess of destruction, of entropy, of the decay that strips everything down to its bones. She is not merely a figure of fear — she is the recognition that destruction is the precursor to transformation.

Destruction is necessary, a dark grace that sweeps away what is stagnant. In the same way entropy, in its relentless advance, dismantles the old structures, Kali’s chaos is the mother of all renewal. Without her, there would be no space for creation. It is entropy’s work, this undoing of order, and Kali’s dance matches the rhythm of a universe that craves disorder to fuel its own rebirth. She is entropy personified, the decay that gives birth to new possibilities, the ruin that allows for the emergence of something unexpected.

But Kali is not only a devourer. Beneath the violence of her destruction lies the strange miracle of transformation. From chaos comes self-organization, from death comes life. Kali is not satisfied with mere endings — she clears the ground for something new to rise, something unanticipated. She is both the storm and the calm after, the shattered pieces that rearrange themselves into a new order. Her role in the universe is complex, balancing the chaotic and the organized, a reminder that even in the most terrifying destruction, there is the possibility of something greater being born from the ashes.

Persephone

Persephone, on the other hand, is more subtle in her manifestation, but no less powerful. She descends into the underworld, swallowed by darkness, her skin cold with the inevitability of death. Yet, she does not remain there forever. Her myth is cyclical — down she goes, only to rise again, bringing with her the spring, the rebirth of life, the reordering of the world.

Her journey into Hades is a descent into entropy itself. Life withers in her absence, winter tightening its grip on the world. This is decay, the slow crumbling of life into the silence of death. Like the increasing entropy in a closed system, Persephone’s descent marks the breakdown of all that once bloomed. But it’s necessary — without the rot of autumn and the freeze of winter, the world could not be reborn.

And yet, Persephone does rise. Spring follows winter as surely as day follows night, and her return is the reordering of life, the self-organization that emerges from entropy’s cold grasp. She is the reminder that chaos is never final, that the universe, no matter how dark, finds its way back to order. In her hands, death and rebirth are intertwined — each feeding into the other, each necessary for the continuous motion of the world.

Entropy and Self-Organization: The Two Sides of Change

Kali and Persephone do not simply represent ancient stories; they are the raw, unspoken truths of existence. They are entropy and self-organization made flesh, a divine reflection of the cosmic forces that shape everything, from stars to souls. In them, the Changist model finds mythic expression, a narrative thread that links modern physics with the primal, universal understanding of change.

In the cold logic of thermodynamics, entropy reigns supreme, driving systems toward disorder. But even in the midst of chaos, there are moments when order springs forth unbidden. Snowflakes form, life emerges — complexity arises from the very breakdown that entropy demands. It is a paradox, one that Kali and Persephone embody. In their myths, the universe whispers its secrets, showing how entropy and self-organization are not opposing forces but twin aspects of the same process.

The ancients might not have known the precise equations, but they understood. They felt the pull of entropy in Kali’s destruction, saw the emergence of new forms in Persephone’s return. These myths do not merely explain — they resonate. They reach into the human soul and reveal the truth of change in a way no formula ever could. They make the abstract visceral, tangible, undeniable.

The Eleusinian Mysteries

In the rites of Eleusis, where Persephone’s descent and return were enacted, the mysteries of life, death, and transformation were laid bare. The initiates, shrouded in darkness, were led through rituals that mirrored the cycle of decay and rebirth, glimpsing a truth deeper than words. This was not mere metaphor but an encounter with the eternal forces of change.

Through the symbolism of the harvest, the death and renewal of crops, the Eleusinian Mysteries brought home the truth that all life moves in cycles, that every death is merely a prelude to rebirth. This cyclical understanding of life mirrors the Changist view that change is constant, and through it, one finds the path to a higher understanding of existence itself.

Kali’s nature is the paradox of destruction birthing creation. Her chaotic dance brings about a balance in the cosmos, where entropy makes way for new possibilities, and self-organization rises from the very heart of disorder.

Persephone’s journey is not merely a seasonal tale but a revelation, an unveiling of the deepest truths, what the Greeks called aletheia. Her descent strips away the illusions of permanence, her return brings with it the clear light of understanding.

Through their stories, we glimpse the truth that destruction and creation are two faces of the same force, that change is the only constant. The myths are timeless, echoing modern scientific understanding, and in them, we find the strange comfort that nothing is permanent, not even the chaos.

Boltzmann, L. (1877). “Über die Beziehung zwischen dem zweiten Hauptsatze der mechanischen Wärmetheorie und der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung respektive den Sätzen über das Wärmegleichgewicht.” Wiener Berichte, 76, 373–435.

Burkert, W. (1985). Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Haken, H. (1983). Synergetics: An Introduction. 3rd edn. Berlin: Springer.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row.

Kinsley, D. R. (1986). Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kernyi, K. (1960). Eleusis: Archetypal Image of Mother and Daughter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mayr, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.

McDermott, R. F. (1975). Kali’s Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna. New York: State University of New York Press.

Mylonas, G. E. (1961). Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Nicolis, G., and Prigogine, I. (1989). Exploring Complexity: An Introduction. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Prigogine, I., and Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam Books.

Sen Gupta, S. (1986). The Cult of the Goddess Kali. Delhi: Clarion Books.

Measure of Change

Time isn’t a river
we navigate, headlong
into the great unknown.
It’s a clock whose hands tick away
on the wall of the present,
counting the beats we own.

A second isn’t a fragment
of some grand, elusive dimension —
it’s a vibration in the bones
of cesium stones,
a turning Earth adrift,
a tool we use to track the pulse
of everything that shifts.

Past and future, myths we weave,
stories rippling in the now.
The past is etched in memories,
but all that stays is this:
the present, unfolding
like a petal’s kiss
brushing against the sun.

The future, too, remains a dream,
a dance not yet begun.
It is potential, unseen,
untouched by ticking hands that run.

All that is resides
within this breath we take,
this pause between each cycle.
The present is the only stage
where change makes its mark —
a constant becoming,
a flicker in the dark
that vanishes before
we can embrace its spark.

So let the river rage and roar.
But know it’s not time that flows —
it’s Earth beneath our feet.
Time is just the name we give
to how things shift and sway,
how they rise and fall away,
appear then fade somehow,
in the endless, eternal Now.

Listen to this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK4dyhICVAc

Further Reading:

Changism: Change and Time in a Presentist Universe: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/change-and-time-in-a-presentist-universe-3aec919829ae

Changism 3: Timeless Eternal Change: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/changism-3-timeless-eternal-change-b87ef0e2780b

Logos: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/logos-0717f9fb6cde

Existence is necessarily eternal and uncreated — why something instead of nothing: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/existence-is-necessarily-eternal-and-uncreated-5fe57626a60b