Hi guys, for a change of all the regular subjects i'd like to talk about time.
If there is time before everything, how would it be possible to reach the present? because then it'd mean the value went over infinity which is not possible :S .
considering there is probably no logical explanation for time i'd like to hear some thoughts so i put this in philosophy:P.
Time
Re: Time
You`re wrong, before our universe existed there was nothing. There was no time or space or anything just nothing. Time started to exist when our universe began to exist.
-
OsiumMaster
Re: Time
So if there was no time how would you reach the point where time started? the only way to reach a certain point in history is by going forward in time...
started... your argument is invalid :)Time started to exist when our universe began to exist.
Re: Time
even if you start the attempt to go backwards in time you could only get to the time you started the attempt so it should be impossible. A time machine for example could only go back to the time it was build.
-
OsiumMaster
Re: Time
This is not about going back with a time machine but about the impossibility to reach the present
(since when do we have time machines???)
(since when do we have time machines???)
Re: Time
oh I understand what you meant ^^
btw we don`t have time machines
and there just was nothing before our universe it just was there at a certain point (I don`t know how it began to exist)
and I don`t get why my argument is invalid? it`s quite simple without time you can`t go forward in time so it just started
btw we don`t have time machines
and there just was nothing before our universe it just was there at a certain point (I don`t know how it began to exist)
and I don`t get why my argument is invalid? it`s quite simple without time you can`t go forward in time so it just started
-
xXMidnightDawnXx
- Posts: 30
- Joined: November 27th, 2010, 10:20 am
- Location: Denver, CO
Re: Time
ok so how do u know that there was a 'time' when time itself did not exist after all time might have been around forever if time was something that was forever and had no start and no end and to your other point about how u can't get to this moment its like asking how does anything get anywhere coz to get there u need to go half way but in order to get half way u have to get quarter of the way and a so on and u keep going like that but at some point u get to where u can't brake things down to a smaller part so that why u can get to this moment
-
OsiumMaster
Re: Time
Well Grizz, I don't think "nothing" is a very good explanation for this. It suggests you have no possible answer at all. I've been thinking about the subject for some time now and i still can't resolve it. how can something come out of nothing??
as Newtons first law says: starting energy = finishing energy, though you're now saying 0--->(hell of a lot) N
xXMidnightDawnXx guess what? infinity:91921313242 = infinity :D I get what you try to say , but if there is an infinite history without starting point you can divide it by any number and still get infinity :( (exept for 0)
Also getting to a point where you can't break things down. that's another subject that bothers me , the distance between my fingers will have infinite numbers behind the komma which makes it kind of strange to understand it. but that's not the topic here.
as Newtons first law says: starting energy = finishing energy, though you're now saying 0--->(hell of a lot) N
xXMidnightDawnXx guess what? infinity:91921313242 = infinity :D I get what you try to say , but if there is an infinite history without starting point you can divide it by any number and still get infinity :( (exept for 0)
Also getting to a point where you can't break things down. that's another subject that bothers me , the distance between my fingers will have infinite numbers behind the komma which makes it kind of strange to understand it. but that's not the topic here.
Re: Time
Can someone please 'dummy' this down for me?
but didn't some greek guy come up with the concept of time?
but didn't some greek guy come up with the concept of time?
.
Re: Time
ok I try to explain it to you once again.
btw newton is a great example here. Newton`s law sure is right (actually we can`t proof anything we can only say if anything is wrong, but it`s generally accepted as truth). But you have to keep in mind that Newton`s law is only right for our universe. It`s like time. Time exists in our universe. Now when we go back to the moment our universe geban to exist (btw moment isn`t correct here as time did not exist but I think you know what I want to say) the physical laws of our universe were "build". This does mean that Newton`s law did not have to be right before our universe existed and similar to that time did not exist as it is only part of our universe.
btw you are right when you say that nothing is not fitting for my explanations - actually we don`t know what was going on there. It is possible that that there are a lot of other universes (maybe even infinite) with completely different laws etc. so there can be a universe were starting energy is not finishing energy or a universe without time at all.
and about the thing with the infinite numers, I guess it`s just not part of the human nature to understand infinity
btw newton is a great example here. Newton`s law sure is right (actually we can`t proof anything we can only say if anything is wrong, but it`s generally accepted as truth). But you have to keep in mind that Newton`s law is only right for our universe. It`s like time. Time exists in our universe. Now when we go back to the moment our universe geban to exist (btw moment isn`t correct here as time did not exist but I think you know what I want to say) the physical laws of our universe were "build". This does mean that Newton`s law did not have to be right before our universe existed and similar to that time did not exist as it is only part of our universe.
btw you are right when you say that nothing is not fitting for my explanations - actually we don`t know what was going on there. It is possible that that there are a lot of other universes (maybe even infinite) with completely different laws etc. so there can be a universe were starting energy is not finishing energy or a universe without time at all.
and about the thing with the infinite numers, I guess it`s just not part of the human nature to understand infinity
Re: Time
there was actually a study done in my philosophy class that "the present moment" ; that is, the time that the brain perceives to be "now" is 3 seconds long. However, I am a firm believer that the past cannot be changed, and that it is only possible to use the past to affect the future; such as, learning from past mistakes to keep from letting yourself make the same mistake over again.
Re: Time
I find it very hard to be confident as to what time is physically, and I am doubly confused when I wonder whether or not there is a difference between how fast humans can observe time and how fast time physically happens.
Thus, I think it might be more informative to talk about what we don't know about time.
One thing which I do not know about time is whether or not the physical phenomena of time that occurs around us is countable or uncountable. (warning: countability is an abstract mathy concept)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable
The natural numbers (0 ,1 ,2 ,3 ,. . . ) are “countable”.
The real numbers (0 ,0.1 ,0.01 ,0.001 ,. . . ) are “uncountable”.
Basically, for any ordering of the real numbers that you can construct, there is a counterexample to that ordering and that counterexample will basically be “between any two real numbers, there are infinitely many real numbers”.
In fact that example of the real numbers that I gave (0 ,0.1 ,0.01 ,0.001 ,. . . ) does not actually describe the real numbers, and this is because the real numbers are uncountable.
The natural numbers on the other hand have the property that between any two natural numbers, there are only a finite amount of natural numbers.
That makes them countable.
Indeed, mapping any collection or set to the natural numbers is a proof of whether or not that set is countable.
So which of these, countable or uncountable, describes the physical phenomena of time? I dunno.
Consider though if time were countable. One would run into a big problem.
Consider that in all (that I know of) of classical physics time is treated as a real number (and real numbers are uncountable).
If time is countable, then there is some fundamental “scale” which seperates one instant of time from the next, but this scale may be very very small.
In fact, that scale could be so very small that the error from mistreating time as uncountable (aka as a real number) would be negligible on the scale of time that is evident in the human experience.
If that were the case, then the only immediately evident problem one would run into would be when dealing with the physics of instantaneous events or at least things that happen very very quickly.
If time is uncountable though, then classical physics would not have that problem (I'm not saying that I know that it does have that problem).
Another thing which I do not know about time is whether or not the notion of branching timelines is physically real or if it is merely a notion that we can comtemplate because we do not actually know how time happens.
I'm sure we have all reflected and considered “how things could have turned out differently” if we had done something different in the past.
We can contemplate branching timelines like that, but if those branching timelines were in some sense actually real physical phenomena, then what impact does that have on my quandry as to whether or not time is countable?
The last thing I'll mention that I do not know about time is the question of whether one moment in time depends on the moment(s) before it?
If one knew the complete physical state of the universe in a single instant (or maybe over a very short timespan) would one then have all the information they would need to extrapolate the next instant (or the next very short timespan)?
If the answer to that is yes, then free will is only an illusion and not a motive force in the universe.
On the other hand, if the answer to that is no, then scientific models might be theoretically impractical for long term timescales regardless of how “good” the model is.
Instead, I think assuming that time has an actual beginning is risky business for logic.
The integers (. . . ,-2 ,-1 ,0 ,1 ,2 ,. . . ) do not have an actual beginning but the natural numbers (0 ,1 ,2 ,. . . ) do have a well defined beginning. However, the integers and the natural numbers are both countable (as in that mathy thing from earlier), so time being countable does not really determine anything useful about whether or not time has a "beginning".
A similar argument can be made about the real numbers and a subinterval of the real numbers (because a subinterval of the real numbers is still uncountable), and so time being uncountable does not really determine anything useful about whether or not time has a "beginning".
If you wanted to study whether or not time can have an actual beginning, then I suggest reading up on cosmology. Cosmology deals with trying to figure out how the universe functions on an astronomical scale, but cosmology suffers from a lack of hands-on leverage to do science with because we only have what information can be gleaned as seen from earth and near earth.
Oddly enough, cosmology and religion are the only two subjects I can think of offhand where a "beginning of time" is actually discussed.
tl:dr
I don't know either, and yes, this post is too long.
Thus, I think it might be more informative to talk about what we don't know about time.
One thing which I do not know about time is whether or not the physical phenomena of time that occurs around us is countable or uncountable. (warning: countability is an abstract mathy concept)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable
The natural numbers (0 ,1 ,2 ,3 ,. . . ) are “countable”.
The real numbers (0 ,0.1 ,0.01 ,0.001 ,. . . ) are “uncountable”.
Basically, for any ordering of the real numbers that you can construct, there is a counterexample to that ordering and that counterexample will basically be “between any two real numbers, there are infinitely many real numbers”.
In fact that example of the real numbers that I gave (0 ,0.1 ,0.01 ,0.001 ,. . . ) does not actually describe the real numbers, and this is because the real numbers are uncountable.
The natural numbers on the other hand have the property that between any two natural numbers, there are only a finite amount of natural numbers.
That makes them countable.
Indeed, mapping any collection or set to the natural numbers is a proof of whether or not that set is countable.
So which of these, countable or uncountable, describes the physical phenomena of time? I dunno.
Consider though if time were countable. One would run into a big problem.
Consider that in all (that I know of) of classical physics time is treated as a real number (and real numbers are uncountable).
If time is countable, then there is some fundamental “scale” which seperates one instant of time from the next, but this scale may be very very small.
In fact, that scale could be so very small that the error from mistreating time as uncountable (aka as a real number) would be negligible on the scale of time that is evident in the human experience.
If that were the case, then the only immediately evident problem one would run into would be when dealing with the physics of instantaneous events or at least things that happen very very quickly.
If time is uncountable though, then classical physics would not have that problem (I'm not saying that I know that it does have that problem).
Another thing which I do not know about time is whether or not the notion of branching timelines is physically real or if it is merely a notion that we can comtemplate because we do not actually know how time happens.
I'm sure we have all reflected and considered “how things could have turned out differently” if we had done something different in the past.
We can contemplate branching timelines like that, but if those branching timelines were in some sense actually real physical phenomena, then what impact does that have on my quandry as to whether or not time is countable?
The last thing I'll mention that I do not know about time is the question of whether one moment in time depends on the moment(s) before it?
If one knew the complete physical state of the universe in a single instant (or maybe over a very short timespan) would one then have all the information they would need to extrapolate the next instant (or the next very short timespan)?
If the answer to that is yes, then free will is only an illusion and not a motive force in the universe.
On the other hand, if the answer to that is no, then scientific models might be theoretically impractical for long term timescales regardless of how “good” the model is.
Initially, I thought your original comment had to do with "counting" time, but that doesn't appear to be the case.OsiumMaster wrote:If there is time before everything, how would it be possible to reach the present? because then it'd mean the value went over infinity which is not possible :S .
Instead, I think assuming that time has an actual beginning is risky business for logic.
The integers (. . . ,-2 ,-1 ,0 ,1 ,2 ,. . . ) do not have an actual beginning but the natural numbers (0 ,1 ,2 ,. . . ) do have a well defined beginning. However, the integers and the natural numbers are both countable (as in that mathy thing from earlier), so time being countable does not really determine anything useful about whether or not time has a "beginning".
A similar argument can be made about the real numbers and a subinterval of the real numbers (because a subinterval of the real numbers is still uncountable), and so time being uncountable does not really determine anything useful about whether or not time has a "beginning".
If you wanted to study whether or not time can have an actual beginning, then I suggest reading up on cosmology. Cosmology deals with trying to figure out how the universe functions on an astronomical scale, but cosmology suffers from a lack of hands-on leverage to do science with because we only have what information can be gleaned as seen from earth and near earth.
Oddly enough, cosmology and religion are the only two subjects I can think of offhand where a "beginning of time" is actually discussed.
tl:dr
I don't know either, and yes, this post is too long.
-
RaveComing
- ヂュード アイム イーティング チッキン
- Posts: 586
- Joined: April 8th, 2010, 5:27 pm
- Location: The Abusement Park
Re: Time
The faster you go, the slower time will revolve around you (speed of light = nearly stop time btw). Anyway, the moment you'd go over speed of light you could, according to modern physics, get over infinity, since infinity is only used as a stamp for anything that is bigger then what we can imagine (see it as a synonyme to BIG). So reason why there's a present is because we're travelling time faster than light (but then light is still faster than us; go quatum!) This might seem complicated, but it's because we're 3-dimensioned beings, we ARE influenced by 4 dimensions (height, width, thickness, time) but we can't SEE the 4th dimension, or live in it.OsiumMaster wrote:it'd mean the value went over infinity which is not possible :S .
Btw, if you go faster than light in our world, then you can hit people before they see you :D
Oh, all of this is implying we're living in a multiverse, else I dunno D:
Re: Time
Understanding Infinity is just the Holy Grail of all knowledge, that's basically the greatest achievement human kind could ever hope to reach.
Re: Time
Actually, time is a creation of space. So to be constantly in the present, you simply have to be in such a place where space is nonexistent.
Oh,and it's true that time moves slower (proportionally to us on earth) the faster one travels through space.
Did you know that when you stare at the night sky, or at the sun, you're staring into the past? It takes 8 minutes for the light from our sun to reach the earth (so if the sun randomly disappeared, it'd be 8 minutes before we Earthlings find out), and a lot more from them distant stars.
Theoretically black holes and quasars have no time. So to get to the present...
Oh,and it's true that time moves slower (proportionally to us on earth) the faster one travels through space.
Did you know that when you stare at the night sky, or at the sun, you're staring into the past? It takes 8 minutes for the light from our sun to reach the earth (so if the sun randomly disappeared, it'd be 8 minutes before we Earthlings find out), and a lot more from them distant stars.
Theoretically black holes and quasars have no time. So to get to the present...
-
Kestrel0907
- Posts: 986
- Joined: January 3rd, 2012, 1:43 pm
- Location: Romania
Re: Time
Time is just an illusion,an old story told from fathers to children,the time we actually talk about is just the rotation of Earth near the Sun and the Moon.
In my opinion control over time cannot be accomplished,of course,from what RC wrote,it could be a possibility to stop time or making it slower,but not reverting it to a state from wich it already was,even if we could somehow do it,we cannot stop it to desintegrate the time machine or making us transform to little...err... ,,white microschopic pieces of hair" or pulverize us to the most lowest level of existence,aka ZERO.
In my opinion control over time cannot be accomplished,of course,from what RC wrote,it could be a possibility to stop time or making it slower,but not reverting it to a state from wich it already was,even if we could somehow do it,we cannot stop it to desintegrate the time machine or making us transform to little...err... ,,white microschopic pieces of hair" or pulverize us to the most lowest level of existence,aka ZERO.
Re: Time
We do have a time machine...it just does not have physical transportation capacity...the great time machine of the mind..every memory is a time travel. every imagining is taking you somewhere.
I believe that time is circuitous in nature. Space-time is much more interesting a concept in my opinion than just time.
time is a linear measure....every different location has a slightly different space-time subset and if you hypothetically were to go to a different planet the orbit would be different thus there would be a different length of measure to the time there.
Everything is energy.
How did time or anything at all come from nothing? It just did. Opposites. Duality. Existence is a lot of loops and infinite duality paradoxes...the answer to that is that there is no answer...
The concept of the number 0 has the potential to get uber deep. 0 nothing in which there is the infinite potential for all things....
I wholly believe that there may be infinite universes. If it all started with a big bang then a hypothetical big crunch could potentially by the merits of Newtons 3rd law lead to at least 2 new big bangs.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.....that law fits so much....and is basically karma in scientific terms...
It is not in human nature to understand infinity but it is given that we may understand the core concepts that underlie all of infinity. Physics is a wonderful albeit very frustrating thing. The laws of physics I believe do not change but the details that form the conditions in which those base laws may manifest in any given environment or setting may easily be changed.
I believe that time is circuitous in nature. Space-time is much more interesting a concept in my opinion than just time.
time is a linear measure....every different location has a slightly different space-time subset and if you hypothetically were to go to a different planet the orbit would be different thus there would be a different length of measure to the time there.
Everything is energy.
How did time or anything at all come from nothing? It just did. Opposites. Duality. Existence is a lot of loops and infinite duality paradoxes...the answer to that is that there is no answer...
The concept of the number 0 has the potential to get uber deep. 0 nothing in which there is the infinite potential for all things....
I wholly believe that there may be infinite universes. If it all started with a big bang then a hypothetical big crunch could potentially by the merits of Newtons 3rd law lead to at least 2 new big bangs.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.....that law fits so much....and is basically karma in scientific terms...
It is not in human nature to understand infinity but it is given that we may understand the core concepts that underlie all of infinity. Physics is a wonderful albeit very frustrating thing. The laws of physics I believe do not change but the details that form the conditions in which those base laws may manifest in any given environment or setting may easily be changed.
Re: Time
time is such a difficult but interesting thing to discuss
I believe that no matter what, time has always been flowing like a river. There was no "when the river started flowing" It was always flowing. Then when God created the universe there was the time when the universe had been created, but this wasnt the begining of time it was just "the begining of the time of the universe" we can reach the present because the flow of time has lead us to this point. When it takes us to the end, whatever God has in store for us will only be the end of the universe. Time will still flow, but no one will be there to watch it.
I believe that no matter what, time has always been flowing like a river. There was no "when the river started flowing" It was always flowing. Then when God created the universe there was the time when the universe had been created, but this wasnt the begining of time it was just "the begining of the time of the universe" we can reach the present because the flow of time has lead us to this point. When it takes us to the end, whatever God has in store for us will only be the end of the universe. Time will still flow, but no one will be there to watch it.
License! Thanks Namahage!
