TIME WITHOUT TIME: RELATIONAL ONTOLOGIES IN CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS, DIALECTICAL CRITIQUE OF THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL GENERALIZATIONS, AND PARALLELS WITH DAOISM AND MADHYAMAKA BUDDHISM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55877/cc.vol34.733Keywords:
relational ontology, quantum gravity, Daoism, Madhyamaka Buddhism, time, events, perception, dialectics, entanglementAbstract
Recent work in physics challenges the idea that time is a fundamental, self-standing entity. In quantum gravity, relational quantum mechanics (henceforth – RQM), and process-based ontologies, time does not exist on its own. Rather, what we call time emerges from relations, event connections, and how we partition reality. Our sense of time arises from patterns and correlations, not from a separate, absolute dimension [Barbour 1999; Rovelli 2017]. This paper examines how these contemporary physical theories align methodologically with two ancient Asian philosophical traditions: Daoism and Madhyamaka Buddhism, which remain highly relevant today. According to the view presented in this article, these traditions did not anticipate modern physics nor did they serve as proto-scientific theories. Rather, they offer ways of thinking which resist rigid conceptions of time and keep inquiry sharp when no fixed timeline is available [Garfield 1995; Robson 2018]. The central claim is that modern physics, Daoism, and Madhyamaka all reject time as something substantial. Events do not exist independently; they occur within shifting relations, not as stable, unchanging bits of reality. Daoism presents a process-oriented outlook that discourages conceptual fixation, while Madhyamaka articulates a relational ontology grounded in dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda) and emptiness (śūnyatā), denying inherent (svabhāva) existence. This paper highlights methodological parallels, showing how both traditions oppose the notion of time as a fixed, independently existing phenomenon. The discussion is supplemented by drawing on the European dialectical tradition, which offers tools for addressing change, contradiction, and relationality without reducing them to simple formulas.
Downloads
References
Adorno, T. W. (1973). Negative Dialectics. E. B. Ashton (trans.). New York: Continuum. Barbour, J. (1999). The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Candrakīrti. (1989). Madhyamakāvatāra (Entering the Middle Way). In: Huntington, C. W., Jr. The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Madhyamaka. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Dafermos, M. (2014). Dialectics and the Transdisciplinary Approach to the History of Science. In: Rethinking History: Reflections on Philosophy, Evidence and Interpretation. London: Routledge.
Garfield, J. L. (trans.) (1995). The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hegel, G. W. F. (2010) [1812]. The Science of Logic. G. di Giovanni (trans. and ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huntington, C. W., Jr. (1989). The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Madhyamaka. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Jinpa, T. (2002). Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy: Tsongkhapa’s Quest for the Middle Way. London: Routledge.
Kohn, L. (2019). Daoism and Science. Cambridge, MA: Three Pines Press. Komjathy, L. (2013). The Daoist Tradition: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury.
Kuhlmann, M. (2020). Process Philosophy and Eastern Thought: Integrating Daoism and Buddhism into Contemporary Ontology. London: Routledge.
Lau, D. C. (trans.) (1963). Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching. London: Penguin Books.
Møllgaard, E. (2007). An Introduction to Daoist Thought: Action, Language, and Ethics in Zhuangzi. London: Routledge.
Nāgārjuna. (1995). Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way).
J. L. Garfield (trans.). In: The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robson, J. (2018). Daoist ontology and contemporary physics. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 45 (3), pp. 345–362.
Rovelli, C. (2016). Is Time’s Arrow Missing from Quantum Gravity? New Scientist, 16 November. Available: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231000-200-is-times-arrow-missing-from-quantum-gravity/ (viewed 20.05.2024).
Rovelli, C. (2017). The Order of Time. S. Carnell and E. Segre (trans.). London: Riverhead Books.
Slingerland, E. (2003). Effortless Action: Wu-wei as Conceptual Metaphor and Spiritual Ideal in Early China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vedral, V. (2010). Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vedral, V. (2025). No space, no time, no particles: A radical vision of quantum reality. New Scientist, 13 January.
Watson, B. (trans.) (2013). The Complete Works of Zhuangzi. New York: Columbia University Press.
Westerhoff, J. (2009). Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ziporyn, B. (2012). Ironies of Oneness and Difference: Coherence in Early Chinese Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Culture Crossroads
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
