When people think within the dimension time we usually project time as something linear: past – present – future, birth – life – death. But is this actually not only a conventional way to think about time ?
In materialistic thought memories are supposed to be a materialistic effect of the brain referring to something non-materialistic: the object or action, having materialized in the past, being remembered. But is this possible at all? Can in a perception where only materialistic things are real a materialistic act (remembrance) refer to something non-materialistic (the object being remembered)?
Maybe we should – as an experiment – turn this whole thinking process upside down. When we remember something, a visit to a certain place for example, is this moment really gone or is it only gone because we think in dimensions of time and space?
Take the example of the stars we see on the firmament. If we would have a machine with which we could instantly travel to that place in the universe where the star we see here from earth actually is in many cases we would notice that the same star we see in the firmament exploded long time ago and is gone. So what is actually more real: the star we effectively see from the earth or the void at the place where the star actually was before he exploded long time ago and light years away from here?
If we say the star we actually see today on the firmament is reality and consequently ignore the fact that in another perception of time and space this star actually does not exist anymore the past is not really past yet but is still considered being present.
This would actually crush the whole concept of linearity of timelines since it would mean that if you look at certain events from a distance that is far enough due to the delay caused by the dimension space what at one point in the universe is already gone, seen from another point in the universe (that is far enough away) is still present.
Which could bring us to a conclusion that the universe cannot really be seen as a more or less static concept but that instead there are many different worlds only existing in the way they are perceived by the ones observing. Naturally, if all observers perceive their worlds from more or less the same point in the dimension space (e.g. the world) their perception of time (and consequently of the objects perceived) will match more or less: what is considered past by one of them will be considered past by the others too. But what if – pure hypothetically – we would have observers in all corners of what we define to be the universe? In that case by the effect described by the example of the star, which we can still see although it exploded long time back; what for one observer would be perceived as past, by another observer would still be perceived as present.
And this way past would become a very relative concept being determined – like so many other things – by the man-made dimensions of time and space.