Existence Without Time: Immaterial Universe & Time

[Iacchus32]

Time is wholy contingent upon the fact that a material Universe exists. Meaning, if there is no physical distance by which to measure the rate of change, there would be no time. However, that isn't to say there wasn't an immaterial universe that existed prior to this, otherwise where would the pre-existing structure (blueprint) exist to give rise to the Big Bang and set the whole material Universe into motion? And what would be the difference between that and say, "rolling out the carpet" (so to speak) with its inherent design? Isn't that in effect what DNA does, the inherent blueprint or code that tells the body what to do? So, if all we have is the immaterial dimension -- ever wonder where we go in our dreams? which, are merely an extension of thought and of the same dimension -- then the only possible thing we can have in the physical sense is stillness which, is an expression of http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219 and, extended unto Eternity.

 

[cogito]

Time is wholy contingent upon the fact that a material Universe exists. Meaning, if there is no physical distance by which to measure the rate of change, there would be no time. However, that isn't to say there wasn't an immaterial universe that existed prior to this, otherwise where would the pre-existing structure (blueprint) exist to give rise to the Big Bang and set the whole material Universe into motion? And what would be the difference between that and say, "rolling out the carpet" (so to speak) with its inherent design? Isn't that in effect what DNA does, the inherent blueprint or code that tells the body what to do? So, if all we have is the immaterial dimension -- ever wonder where we go in our dreams? which, are merely an extension of thought and of the same dimension -- then the only possible thing we can have in the physical sense is stillness which, is an expression of http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=219 and, extended unto Eternity.

What reason do we have to believe that a necessary condition for the existence of time is the existence of physical space? Further, if you are correct that prior to the material universe (whatever that means, exactly) there existed an immaterial universe (whatever that means, exactly), then you are already committed to the existence of time, as you are committed to the existence of temporal priority. See, you can't say both that 1) Time came into existence with the material world, and 2) before the material world there was an immaterial world. "Before" is itself a temporal notion. So, your position entails a contradiction, and hence it is false.

 

[Iacchus32]

What reason do we have to believe that a necessary condition for the existence of time is the existence of physical space?

Because in order to get from points A to B it requires a physical plane and, of course time. And yet if there was no physical plane, let alone points A and B, what is there to measure, and hence time?

Further, if you are correct that prior to the material universe (whatever that means, exactly) there existed an immaterial universe (whatever that means, exactly), then you are already committed to the existence of time, as you are committed to the existence of temporal priority.

No, you're committed to the fact that there was a before the Big Bang which, could not have been measured at the time because there was no physical plane by which to do so. However, now that there is, we can project any time we want back before the Big Bang, for example, 1 billion years BBB (before the Big Bang).

See, you can't say both that 1) Time came into existence with the material world, and 2) before the material world there was an immaterial world. "Before" is itself a temporal notion. So, your position entails a contradiction, and hence it is false.

Yes, time has always existed, it's just that at one point there was no (physical) rate of change by which to measure it.

 

[Chronos]

It is meaningless to discuss time without spatial dimensions. They are covariant. Neither concept is meaningful without the other. Multiplication by zero can yield any result desired.

 

[cogito]

Because in order to get from points A to B it requires a physical plane and, of course time. And yet if there was no physical plane, let alone points A and B, what is there to measure, and hence time?

All this entails is that if there is movement from A to B, there must be time as well. This entails nothing about the existence of time itself.

No, you're committed to the fact that there was a before the Big Bang which, could not have been measured at the time because there was no physical plane by which to do so. However, now that there is, we can project any time we want back before the Big Bang, for example, 1 billion years BBB (before the Big Bang).

First, I'm not committed to any particular position on the Big Bang, because I haven't made any claims about the Big Bang. Second, you're fallaciously assuming that if there doesn't exist the means by which to measure something, then that something doesn't exist. Third, you claimed in your first post that before the material world there was no time, and now you are claiming (again) that there was something before the existence of the material world. You are contradicting yourself.

Yes, time has always existed, it's just that at one point there was no (physical) rate of change by which to measure it.

Oh, now you are completely changing what you said originally. You began by claiming that time came into existence with the material world (although you went on to contradict yourself). Now you're claiming merely that the means by which to measure time came into existence with the material world, but time itself has always existed. Well, at least this position is consistent. Unfortunately, it is also not the position you took originally. Apparently, you now recognize your previous incoherence.

Cheers!

 

[cogito]

It is meaningless to discuss time without spatial dimensions. They are covariant. Neither concept is meaningful without the other. Multiplication by zero can yield any result desired.

In philosophical discussions, it is customary to give arguments for one's claims, and not merely present semi-coherent assertions. Do you have any arguments? Anyway, just because two things covary, that doesn't entail that they can't be defined independently of one another (ie, it doesn't follow that their respective concepts aren't meaningful in isolation). Second, multiplication be zero does not yield any desired result. It yields one result, the same every time, and that result is zero.

 

[RingoKid]

pre BB as relates to our universe all that existed was time there was no space for objects to move through to make things relative to each other...

If you only have one thing and that is "nothing" then it is only relative to itself there is no thing to compare it to so it exists etenally and infinitely and not at all but it still exists.

So let's give it a consciousness of itself such that it has a thought which then differentiates something from nothing and let that thought be a first cause. The first thought/cause that is our universe is I AM.

 

[quantumdude]

In philosophical discussions, it is customary to give arguments for one's claims, and not merely present semi-coherent assertions. Do you have any arguments?

This being Physics Forums, I think that Chronos was expecting that his readers could fill in the blanks. "Covariance" is a direct reference to relativity, which inextricably couples space and time.

Anyway, just because two things covary, that doesn't entail that they can't be defined independently of one another (ie, it doesn't follow that their respective concepts aren't meaningful in isolation).

I agree that space and time have meaning in isolation. Relativistic covariance doesn't go against that.

What SR does entail is that time and space do not exist independently of each other, not that they don't have meaning independently of each other. And what GR further entails is that time and space do not exist independently of matter and energy.

 

[Prometheus]

Time is wholy contingent upon the fact that a material Universe exists.

I disagree. Time is a fundamental component of the material universe. Without time, there could not be a material universe.

Meaning, if there is no physical distance by which to measure the rate of change, there would be no time.

I believe that you are arguing from a perspective that assumes that the Big Bang is necessarily the beginning. This is a fallacy, I believe.

However, that isn't to say there wasn't an immaterial universe that existed prior to this,

I like this line of reasonaing better, yet it contradicts your previous statement, I believe.

 

[Iacchus32]

I disagree. Time is a fundamental component of the material universe. Without time, there could not be a material universe.

In what way is time active though? I doesn't really affect anything does it? To me, I think it's a lot like a shadow, which is a secondary effect, and entirely contingent upon something to project it. Meaning if there was no space in the first place, there would be no rate of change to measure in the second place. Which, is why I believe it's only possible to live in the moment, for the past nor the future really exist, in the sense that we're speaking of the moment which once was or, the moment which has yet to be.

I believe that you are arguing from a perspective that assumes that the Big Bang is necessarily the beginning. This is a fallacy, I believe.

I'm suggesting that the Big Bang was the beginning of the material universe, yes. Except that something (of another dimension) existed prior to this, which contained the blueprint of the Big Bang (so to speak) and, everything else that came into existence.

I like this line of reasonaing better, yet it contradicts your previous statement, I believe.

By immaterial I don't mean nothing though.

 

[PIT2]

I'm suggesting that the Big Bang was the beginning of the material universe, yes. Except that something (of another dimension) existed prior to this, which contained the blueprint of the Big Bang (so to speak) and, everything else that came into existence.

So 'before' the BB, time and space didnt exist, yet there was something that contained its blueprint. If time didnt exist for this something, wouldn't that make it eternal, meaning that the something-with-the-blueprint still exists(outside of time and space)?

 

[Prometheus]

In what way is time active though? I doesn't really affect anything does it?

I don't understand this. For one thing, time affects all of space. All of space is and must be always in motion through time. Can you provide an example of any space that is not in motion through time? Time affects everything. Space cannot exist independent of time (post Big Bang).

To me, I think it's a lot like a shadow, which is a secondary effect, and entirely contingent upon something to project it. Meaning if there was no space in the first place, there would rate of change to measure in the second place.

Are you saying that if there were no space in the first place, then there would be no people or other entities that could measure time since they cannot exist if there is no space? I agree with this. Without space, time cannot be measured. A major reason for this is that there could be nothing that desires to measure time, and there could be no tool to measure with. However, you have stated that you are speaking of the post Big Bang era, in which not only is there space, but this space is indivisibly integrated with time, as space-time.

Which, is why I believe it's only possible to live in the moment, for the past nor the future really exist, in the sense that we're speaking of the moment which once was or, the moment which has yet to be.

I don't understand. Are you saying that a person cannot at this very moment live his life in yesterday? I agree. That seems pretty obvious to me. I wonder if this is what you mean, however. What do you mean when you say that the past and the future do not exist? If your past and future do not exist, then you could never have been born and you will never die. This also cannot be what you mean. Please explain what you mean by this statement, because I cannot understand what you mean.

 

[PIT2]

I don't understand. Are you saying that a person cannot at this very moment live his life in yesterday? I agree. That seems pretty obvious to me. I wonder if this is what you mean, however. What do you mean when you say that the past and the future do not exist? If your past and future do not exist, then you could never have been born and you will never die. This also cannot be what you mean. Please explain what you mean by this statement, because I cannot understand what you mean.

Maybe he means that, right at this second, the past does not exist and neither does the future. The past only existed at the moment it happened. And the future only exists at the moment it happens(but by then it won't be the future anymore obviously).

 

[Philocrat]

What about the possibility of a missing time dimension - the present - that some people are already advocating? And the wacky possibility that we may be either in the past or in the future? How plausible are these claims?

 

[Iacchus32]

Maybe he means that, right at this second, the past does not exist and neither does the future. The past only existed at the moment it happened. And the future only exists at the moment it happens(but by then it won't be the future anymore obviously).

Yes, this is correct. So, basically if you acknowledge this much, you're acknowledging the original stillness which always was (and still is), before time began ... i.e., due to the advent of matter or, material space. So, before the advent of time, I'm suggesting we had something comparable to the dimension of thought, which is, afterall, realized in the moment ... i.e., through consciousness.

 

[DM]

Because in order to get from points A to B it requires a physical plane and, of course time.

Time came to existence with the material world, "of course time" cannot be stated as we created time, it didn't exist naturally!

No, you're committed to the fact that there was a before the Big Bang which, could not have been measured at the time

Could not have been measured at the time? And now it can? why is that? we didn't exist? or was it the material world in which created time that didn't exist?

I tend to agree that you're contradicting things here...

Yes, time has always existed, it's just that at one point there was no (physical) rate of change by which to measure it.

Another contradiction...

 

[Rader]

What SR does entail is that time and space do not exist independently of each other, not that they don't have meaning independently of each other. And what GR further entails is that time and space do not exist independently of matter and energy.

Tom this is a little difficult to understand since we are discussing what might have been before the Big Bang. I realize that we can not really talk about GR before BB as it does not make any sense. Would it be cogerent language to talk about space before BB in a 0 time frame, before matter came into existence? The reason why I ask, is that following the BB what actually occupies space is 99% empty. Any comments to help clear things up.

 

[Philocrat]

In whose visual frame of reference? Supposing ants, rats, 'microscopoids', 'macroscopoids' or 'cosmolopoids' all perceive and interprete time or spatio-temporal relations differently? How would we, the humans, know how they perceive time, let alone spatio-temporal relations? Come to think of it, our close relatives, animals that we often visually degrade and dumb-down, tend 'see', 'hear' and 'sense' more than we do. For I have witnessed many years ago, animals predicted eathquake and fled inland to safetey 10 days before the actual moment of impact and before the humans knew about it. People woke up that morning to see the entire village completely empty. No single animal in sight. While they spent the rest of the ten days wondering whether the village has been visited by a gang of thieves, the animals were rejoycing miles away from the point of danger. Yet, we claim to be the ones who always see and know best. Well, I think there is more to visual pereception and knowing than what we currently imagine them to be.

 

[Philocrat]

Perhaps, humans have a great deal to learn from other life forms! Just perhaps! At the very least, couldn't we make some effort to scientifically overcome the human visual or perceptual limitations? Must we just sit back, go with the flow, leave things to nature as the prophets of doom often suggest, and ultemately do nothing to improve our visual abilities for which we are, quite rightly, naturally empowered?

 

[Philocrat]

Scientists, and many advocates in other disciplines, often see and think of the human activities as artificial and unnatural. Well, philosophers, especially those with their heads well-screwed on, see this view as a fundamental perceptual error, hence a contradiction. This is the fundamental paradoxical question they have raised:

---------
If man is part of nature, why should anything that man does be unnatural or artificial? For example, if the humans, upon subsequent realisation of their own natural limitations, suddenly dicided to write the structures of the world into themselves as a means of overcoming those limitations, why should such an action be perceived and construed as unnatural?
---------

Upon the same token, we tend to naively detach human activities very often from activities that may be said to have something to do with a Higher Being or GOD. We talk of scientific progress as if though God may have no hand in it. If good science, for example, cures us of diseases and ailments, are we to continue to claim that a Higher Being, if such a Being did exist in the first place, had nothing to do with this? This is the very point where science and religion must reconcile and seek a common ground through proper conduct of interdisciplinary scholarship.

NOTE: If nature, human and God all acted in a manner that avoids errors in the causal and relational structure of the world, could we not count them as related and as acting progressively for the common good of all? Is there anything in this relation that is artificial or more natural than the other?

 

[Philocrat]

Time may be currently illusive and difficult to understand, but the highest point in the human perception and understanding of time...is that very moment when we can think and act without deadlines...when we have no more miles to cover in order to survive. And by then, the humans (whatever forms they might have finally taken) may have attained a state of physical indestructibility...and survived!

 

[Philocrat]

And finally, with regards to time and the doomsday predictions made by physics, I hereby this day cordially invite the science community to start thinking of INTERPLANTERY MIGRATION! Start informing your local politicians of the TERMINAL CONSEQUENCES of not doing something about this? The time scale of the doomsday that you guys predict may be in a distanced future, but it's still a wise thing to start educating your politicians on the subject.

However, this preparation should be backed with proper conduct of the 'SCIENCE OF MAN'. And here is the Golden Rule:

--------------------
The 'SCIENCE OF NEEDS' must at all times be backed with the 'SCIENCE OF MAN': both must always be combined and actioned in a positive way!
--------------------

Thanks.

 

[Rader]

In whose visual frame of reference?

Yes your right we must pick a who time frame and a where time frame, in order to choose a event.

Supposing ants, rats, 'microscopoids', 'macroscopoids' or 'cosmolopoids' all perceive and interprete time or spatio-temporal relations differently?

Although time is relative to the observer, all substance uses the same physical laws of nature.

How would we, the humans, know how they perceive time, let alone spatio-temporal relations?

An observers perception is relative to its awarenss and time is relative to its observer.

Perhaps, humans have a great deal to learn from other life forms! Just perhaps! At the very least, couldn't we make some effort to scientifically overcome the human visual or perceptual limitations?

Life is a learning procees, it is my perception that humans do learn as we make mistakes and adapt to our environment.

Must we just sit back, go with the flow, leave things to nature as the prophets of doom often suggest, and ultemately do nothing to improve our visual abilities for which we are, quite rightly, naturally empowered?

Again it is hard for me to imagine what the world appears to you, as I see it quite differently, is this your image of the world or the way you think it appears to all others?

If man is part of nature, why should anything that man does be unnatural or artificial?

These terms are not defineable in the context of my understanding. Unnatural or artificial or any other word to describe substance is still of the same essence.

For example, if the humans, upon subsequent realisation of their own natural limitations, suddenly dicided to write the structures of the world into themselves as a means of overcoming those limitations, why should such an action be perceived and construed as unnatural?

Its not as far as I perceive the world. Its a choice with a direction towards change.

If good science, for example, cures us of diseases and ailments, are we to continue to claim that a Higher Being, if such a Being did exist in the first place, had nothing to do with this?

Science can cure nothing, it only modifies a state of being. Cure has a miraculous tone about it and pertains to what we are searching for.

If nature, human and God all acted in a manner that avoids errors in the causal and relational structure of the world, could we not count them as related and as acting progressively for the common good of all?

Only if essence is one in nature, in my humble opinion.

Is there anything in this relation that is artificial or more natural than the other?

That depends if you consider essence to be more artificial or natural than substance.

And finally, with regards to time and the doomsday predictions made by physics, I hereby this day cordially invite the science community to start thinking of INTERPLANTERY MIGRATION! Start informing your local politicians of the TERMINAL CONSEQUENCES of not doing something about this?

Do not worry to much, substance will change but its essence will never vanish.

 

[quantumdude]

Tom this is a little difficult to understand since we are discussing what might have been before the Big Bang.

I was just clarifying and expanding on Chronos' remarks.

I realize that we can not really talk about GR before BB as it does not make any sense.

That's right.

Would it be cogerent language to talk about space before BB in a 0 time frame, before matter came into existence?

If there is no matter, then how can you talk about space and time at all?

It's not as though space is a 'thing' that exists between objects, and that that thing would still be there if you took all the objects out of the picture. What we call "empty space" (which is not really empty, but that's not the issue at hand) is just a relationship between objects that have spatial extension. Take away the objects, and there's no relationship to speak of.

 

[Nereid]

Yes, this is correct. So, basically if you acknowledge this much, you're acknowledging the original stillness which always was (and still is), before time began ... i.e., due to the advent of matter or, material space. So, before the advent of time, I'm suggesting we had something comparable to the dimension of thought, which is, afterall, realized in the moment ... i.e., through consciousness.

Wait a minute (or a parsec, or a meta-minute)! Either you have just introduced an undefined entity ('consciousness') and you could equally well have said '6oihserioserh', or you are using 'consciousness' with at least some of its usual meanings, and I can ask why you think 'consciousness' can have an existence independent of (human) brains?

 

[Nereid]

Perhaps, humans have a great deal to learn from other life forms! Just perhaps! At the very least, couldn't we make some effort to scientifically overcome the human visual or perceptual limitations? Must we just sit back, go with the flow, leave things to nature as the prophets of doom often suggest, and ultemately do nothing to improve our visual abilities for which we are, quite rightly, naturally empowered?

So here is some what we presently understand other lifeforms (on Earth) can perceive beyond what the mammal Homo sap. can (probably not an exhaustive list), together with what that puny mammal can do, when augmented with gee-wizz gadgets and instruments:
- UV (some insects)
- IR (esp pit vipers)
- infra-sound (e.g. elephants)
- ultrasound (many animals)
- air-borne chemicals, a.k.a. 'smell' (almost every living thing is more sensitive than Homo sap.!)
- water-borne chemicals (ditto; note that some bacteria are extraordinarily sensitive to the gradient of certain 'food' chemicals)
- surface vibrations, which may be low-intensity earthquakes, or merely a heavy mammal walking nearby (lots of insects, and others, e.g. cockroaches)
- magnetic fields (some bacteria, some birds)
- electric fields (platypus, some fish).

The puny mammal (with its instruments) can detect UV, IR, sound, surface vibrations, and magnetic fields better than any animal can; puny mammal (with its instruments) can detect some chemicals, and (probably) electric fields much more clumsily than the relevant animals, and probably less sensitively (in many cases).

Can anyone add anything significant to this list? I mean, AFAIK, no living thing can detect cosmic rays, or neutrinos, or alpha particles, or EM in the radio part of the spectrum ...

So, in terms of the consciousness or experience of any living thing, what might Homo sap. be missing? If we could re-wire Philocrat's brain so he (she?) could perceive electric fields as well as the best platypus, what new, deep philosphical insights do you think he could provide us?

 

[Rader]

If there is no matter, then how can you talk about space and time at all?

Your are right in a sense, its understood that at time 0, there is no theory or math to even talk about this. The only answer for that is, take a choice, conscious humans ¿only my opinion? assume its a better assumption to conceptualize time and space existing before matter, in a different time and space frame, verses time and space, was non-existent yet a universe virtually pooped into existence from nothing. We now know that space or the vacuum is not so empty. Particles can appear out of a vacuum but is not that only at the expense of the destruction of others?

It's not as though space is a 'thing' that exists between objects, and that that thing would still be there if you took all the objects out of the picture.

Why is that the present understanding of science? Is it just that, that is all we know for the moment? Knowledge changes over time, using my analytical philosophy, it would seem more logical that it might not be understood in the same way, when we understand what is time 0.

What we call "empty space" (which is not really empty, but that's not the issue at hand) is just a relationship between objects that have spatial extension. Take away the objects, and there's no relationship to speak of.

So is it, the problem that we just can not understand for the moment and coneptualize time in negetive time frames and Hilbert space models of whatever there was before?

 

[Philocrat]

So here is some what we presently understand other lifeforms (on Earth) can perceive beyond what the mammal Homo sap. can (probably not an exhaustive list), together with what that puny mammal can do, when augmented with gee-wizz gadgets and instruments:
- UV (some insects)
- IR (esp pit vipers)
- infra-sound (e.g. elephants)
- ultrasound (many animals)
- air-borne chemicals, a.k.a. 'smell' (almost every living thing is more sensitive than Homo sap.!)
- water-borne chemicals (ditto; note that some bacteria are extraordinarily sensitive to the gradient of certain 'food' chemicals)
- surface vibrations, which may be low-intensity earthquakes, or merely a heavy mammal walking nearby (lots of insects, and others, e.g. cockroaches)
- magnetic fields (some bacteria, some birds)
- electric fields (platypus, some fish).

The puny mammal (with its instruments) can detect UV, IR, sound, surface vibrations, and magnetic fields better than any animal can; puny mammal (with its instruments) can detect some chemicals, and (probably) electric fields much more clumsily than the relevant animals, and probably less sensitively (in many cases).

Can anyone add anything significant to this list? I mean, AFAIK, no living thing can detect cosmic rays, or neutrinos, or alpha particles, or EM in the radio part of the spectrum ...

So, in terms of the consciousness or experience of any living thing, what might Homo sap. be missing? If we could re-wire Philocrat's brain so he (she?) could perceive electric fields as well as the best platypus, what new, deep philosphical insights do you think he could provide us?

GOOD Question! Who knows? Frankly, I have no idea! What do you think? Could any of your listed abilities attributed to those classes of life forms be applicable, let alone be useful, to the humans?

 

[cyfin]

This whole discussion is completely unnecessary. The answer is simple. Time does not exsist.

Time is a logical contradiction. For every cause, there is an effect. And if time exsists, when did it start? Logically, if time exsists, there has to be a time when time did not exsist. In order to explain the change from time not exsisting to time exsisting, you need to have time. Therefore, it contradicts itself and cannot be logically accepted. Time can only be used under asumtions.

As Rene Descartes says "I think therefore I am". I am the only thing I know exsists. If time does not exsist. Spacial dimentions are completely useless becuase there can never be any transformations on them. Only one thing needs to exsist. Call it space if you want. call it thought. It is exsistance. It is at a fixed constant state.

Funny thing about "I think therefore I am": It is present tense. Do we need to remember our past in order to know we exsist?


All this is completely theoretical. Obviously my observations tell me time exsists. Based upon the asumtion that time exsists, I think its obvious you're referring to God, but as a scientific discussion, we'll leave him/her out of it. Before time exsisted, there has to be an immaterial universe. The material universe is a transformation of space around time (or vice versa). Without time to define space, it is then boundless and would occupy everthing. Hence, there is an immaterial universe before time that consists of all space. Aka "Everything". Once time was created, it came into exsitance at a single point in space. Since its all arbitrary, we'll call it the "Center" of the universe. From the "Center" of the universe poured out "Everything". Tada! The BIG BANG! Yadda Yadda Yadda. Trillions of years later, we are the current end result. Next question to follow: Will we ever run out of "Everthing"?

 

[KaneOris]

otherwise where would the pre-existing structure (blueprint) exist to give rise to the Big Bang and set the whole material Universe into motion?[/URL] and, extended unto Eternity.

What is to say there was a blueprint, why could or universe not be the first. If we arent, and there are ones before us, then they would have followed a structure, and that would go back for infinite aeons. But there must have been an instigator of the structure, to say things have existed forever is fiction, there has to be a starting point of any existence

 

[Prometheus]

Logically, if time exsists, there has to be a time when time did not exsist.

I am sorry, but I do not understand the logic that you speak of. Would you please elaborate on how your statemet is logical?

 

[cyfin]

I am sorry, but I do not understand the logic that you speak of. Would you please elaborate on how your statemet is logical?

Physical space is chaged from one configuration to another. The process and rate at which this takes place is called time and typically measured in seconds. B changes into C and C changes into D. In order for D to exsist, C must exsist. And for C to exsist, B must exsist. Logically, we can infer that there must be an A because B exsists. Unless B is the first. If B is the first, What was there before B? There has to be a condition where this law (time) does not apply.

 

[Prometheus]

If B is the first, What was there before B?

If B was the first, then obviously there was nothing before B.

Logically, we can infer that there must be an A because B exsists.

I still don't understand this. I can recognize that you accept this, however I do not see how this must follow logically.

 

[cyfin]

Time is defined as this condition: "A follows B". When the condition is no longer true, it ceases to be called time. Therefore, A can be the first condition of time, but not the first exsistance of anything else.

 

[Iacchus32]

It's not as though space is a 'thing' that exists between objects, and that that thing would still be there if you took all the objects out of the picture. What we call "empty space" (which is not really empty, but that's not the issue at hand) is just a relationship between objects that have spatial extension. Take away the objects, and there's no relationship to speak of.

So what exactly is space then? Is it comprised of something? Or, is it comprised of nothing? Does it contain an elemental structure, with atoms and electrons and protons and all that good stuff? In other words did space itself exist before the Big Bang? Surely if there was nothing before the Big Bang, there would be no space either, right?

 

[Rader]

This whole discussion is completely unnecessary. The answer is simple. Time does not exsist.

The discussion is about the existence without time. At that moment, in a 0 time frame, in theory time would not exist, nor would there be existence of substance that gives rise to cause and effect.The problem to resovle is, could time and space exist before time and space as we know it? How could time and space evolve from nothing or something, from that which, we do not know what it is?

Time is a logical contradiction. For every cause, there is an effect. And if time exsists, when did it start? Logically, if time exsists, there has to be a time when time did not exsist. In order to explain the change from time not exsisting to time exsisting, you need to have time. Therefore, it contradicts itself and cannot be logically accepted. Time can only be used under asumtions.

If you examine a 0 time frame at the speed of light, everything is crunched into plank time and plank space. Hence the BB gave rise to slower speeds and substance taking form. Although time is relative to the observer, more than assumed calculations can be calculated and correlated.

As Rene Descartes says "I think therefore I am". I am the only thing I know exsists. If time does not exsist. Spacial dimentions are completely useless becuase there can never be any transformations on them. Only one thing needs to exsist. Call it space if you want. call it thought. It is exsistance. It is at a fixed constant state.

In the present, transformations that substance undergoes, in spatial dimensions are measureable. If I alone can do those experiments and confirm those predictions, my physical self per se exists.

Funny thing about "I think therefore I am": It is present tense. Do we need to remember our past in order to know we exsist?

To my understanding essence would have to know all time frames in order for me to know I exist. I am was not always as is now, it was and will be all there is eventually.

All this is completely theoretical. Obviously my observations tell me time exsists. Based upon the asumtion that time exsists, I think its obvious you're referring to God, but as a scientific discussion, we'll leave him/her out of it.

No one knows essence, we only give it names to suite our status.

Before time exsisted, there has to be an immaterial universe. The material universe is a transformation of space around time (or vice versa). Without time to define space, it is then boundless and would occupy everthing. Hence, there is an immaterial universe before time that consists of all space.

That is one possibility but there is more options.

Aka "Everything". Once time was created, it came into exsitance at a single point in space. Since its all arbitrary, we'll call it the "Center" of the universe. From the "Center" of the universe poured out "Everything". Tada! The BIG BANG! Yadda Yadda Yadda. Trillions of years later, we are the current end result.

Is there a point and center of a undefinable place?

Will we ever run out of "Everthing"?

That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. We would just have something more of everything that exists.

 

[Iacchus32]

Yes, this is correct. So, basically if you acknowledge this much, you're acknowledging the original stillness which always was (and still is), before time began ... i.e., due to the advent of matter or, material space. So, before the advent of time, I'm suggesting we had something comparable to the dimension of thought, which is, afterall, realized in the moment ... i.e., through consciousness.

Wait a minute (or a parsec, or a meta-minute)! Either you have just introduced an undefined entity ('consciousness') and you could equally well have said '6oihserioserh', or you are using 'consciousness' with at least some of its usual meanings, and I can ask why you think 'consciousness' can have an existence independent of (human) brains?

Am I suggesting that the Universe was created as the medium for consciousness? Yes. Can I define the condition any better than I already have? I'm not that sure I can. However, there does seem to be a correlation between consciousness and timelessness, the fact being we can only experience the "here and now."

 

[Prometheus]

I think that I understand you now.

Time is defined as this condition: "A follows B".

I think that you should say that you define it this way (decribe this subjectively instead of objectively), as I have never heard of such a definition and I do not agree with it.

When the condition is no longer true, it ceases to be called time.

I completely disagree. Now that I understand that this is your understanding, I can accept it as such.

 

[cyfin]

could time and space exist before time and space as we know it? How could time and space evolve from nothing or something, from that which, we do not know what it is?

What do you mean by "time and space as we know it"? Without time, before time and space, you have only space. Space and Time cannot evolve from nothing( as you put it. I would say everthing) without time. The evolution, or transition, is impossible without time. Unless your just saying there was time, then space restarted and from our perception time started when space restarted.

If you examine a 0 time frame at the speed of light, everything is crunched into plank time and plank space. Hence the BB gave rise to slower speeds and substance taking form. Although time is relative to the observer, more than assumed calculations can be calculated and correlated.

Perhaps we have diffrerent definitions of 0 time frame. You say in a zero time frame everything is over Plank time ( an interval of time) and Plank space ( are you referring to Plank Length? A distance around 10^-33cm?) Based upon many topics the the physics section, people would disagree that time is relative to the observer.

In the present, transformations that substance undergoes, in spatial dimensions are measureable. If I alone can do those experiments and confirm those predictions, my physical self per se exists.

Your ovbservations cannot be trusted. Your senses are not provable. I believe that is the conclution Descartes came to. Only your thoughts can be proven. Becuase this does not help with science. We must work under the assumtions that our senses can be trusted.

That is one possibility but there is more options.

I am interested to hear more

Is there a point and center of a undefinable place?

The only thing undefined is time. Space is still in the spatial dimention and consists of everthing. As soon as time exsists, the material universe(space+time) could only exsists where time exsists. Thinking about it more brought me to another theory: Space was every where. If time came into exsistance everywhere, then gravity would pull everything into a single point. Then from there expand out. (BB). Which ever theory you choose: time exsisting only at a single point or everwhere at once, you get the same effect, the Bing Bang.

 

[Prometheus]

the Bing Bang.

Cute.

Space is still in the spatial dimention and consists of everthing.

What does this mean? Everything does not only consist of space, but of space and time.

As soon as time exsists, the material universe(space+time) could only exsists where time exsists.

Wrong. You are assuming that space is first. If time were first, then there would be no space before space came to exist.

 

[cyfin]

What does this mean? Everything does not only consist of space, but of space and time.

Rader said there was no way do determine the center from an undefined space. The center is defineable because there is still a spatial dimension. Just no time.

Wrong. You are assuming that space is first. If time were first, then there would be no space before space came to exist.

I wouldn't call it an assumtion, but that is a major point in my theory. Time can be traced back to previous transformations of the spatial dimention. Therefore, there must be a time before time that only consists of space. I believe time defines space, I think this is arguable and perhaps the weak point in my theory. If it does define space, then the lack of time would mean a lack of definition of space. As mentioned earlier about thermodynamics, this state would be in "Perfect Order". All matter/energy everywhere simutaniously. It has the highest potential energy, all it needs is a definition from time in order to start its tansfer of energy.

 

[Rader]

What do you mean by "time and space as we know it"?

There is three ways to measure time as we know it.
TIME:
01-There is a thermodynamic arrow that points in a direction of time where disorder or entropy increases.
02-Second there is our physiological arrow, how we feel time, as we remember the past and not the future.
03-Third the cosmological arrow, in which we can observe and measure the expansion of our universe.
SPACE:
The relationships of substance in space , in 3D spatial dimensions.

Without time, before time and space, you have only space.

That is contrary to present theory, unknowable at the present. It is more logical to ascertain that time and space as we know it now, was before, only in a state of which we know nothing of.

Space and Time cannot evolve from nothing ( as you put it.

Nothing is a general term to describe what is not there yet. Nothing is something even it it is nothing. In empty space, if we discount the relations that substance defines, we are left with .999> empty space. When we weight all the substance in the universe, something does not correlate; most of its weight is not accountable. So you see, empty space is almost completely nothing until it is something. Some might argue, that goes against the second law of thermodynamics, I think not, were not creating substance out of nothing. The weight is there, substance volume just might not be yet.

I would say everything) without time. The evolution, or transition, is impossible without time. Unless your just saying there was time, then space restarted and from our perception time started when space restarted

.

There is no reason to dispute that what was before, is not any different than what is now, only in a different state of being.

Perhaps we have different definitions of 0 time frame. You say in a zero time frame everything is over Plank time ( an interval of time) and Plank space ( are you referring to Plank Length? A distance around 10^-33cm?) Based upon many topics the physics section, people would disagree that time is relative to the observer.

They must be students of Newton. Go down to National Scientific and buy two atomic clocks. You hold one under your arm and go have a snooze. :zzz:
Give the other to anybody you want and have him go on a airplane anywhere. Correlate the clocks so they are exactly the same time. When your friend gets back from his trip compare clocks. I guarantee they will not have the same time measured.

Your observations cannot be trusted. Your senses are not provable. I believe that is the conclusion Descartes came to. Only your thoughts can be proven. Because this does not help with science. We must work under the assumptions that our senses can be trusted.

Descartes is dead and we are not. We have theories and the functional world demonstrates they work, that’s why we do not walk into doors. Many things could not be accomplished if they were only unproven assumptions.

The only thing undefined is time.

Everything is definable in new terms, knowledge changes over time.

Space is still in the spatial dimension and consists of everything.

Substance defines spatial dimensions and has relationships in space. Nothing is also there in space. So there you have everything.

As soon as time exists, the material universe (space+time) could only exist where time exists. Thinking about it more brought me to another theory: Space was every where. If time came into existence everywhere, then gravity would pull everything into a single point. Then from there expand out. (BB). Which ever theory you choose: time existing only at a single point or everywhere at once, you get the same effect, the Bing Bang.

Tomorrow we will put it all aside and come up with something better than explains not only the now but the before.

 

[RingoKid]

space and time are only relative when an object has to travel from point A to point B.

This implies the object has to be different from the medium it is traveling in and the object has to be in motion.

Before our universe there was no object to differentiate from the medium. It didn't move cos there was no point a or b to move between to so it took no time to do this.

but the medium as an object itself still existed and still does.

 

[juju]

Hi,

If time is defined as a change, then no change means no time.

If time is defined as a progression of states, then time can still exist if their is no change. Here an unchanging state has an interval of duration in time.

If time is defined as A follows B, the first scenario above
leads to no time if A=B.

This is not true under the second scenario.

juju

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'll just add my two cents. I think it can be confusing to mix up terms used to describe physical phenomena and metaphysical ideas. Time is now pretty much exclusively a physical concept, so if we want to talk about time in another context we'd have to attach some prefix/suffix or additional word to time to distinguish it from physical time. Of course, some people even try to imbue physical time with miraculous qualities, such as when overly-imaginative thinkers like to dream that time is a physical dimension one can move around in.

Time is simply how we measure the rate of change of physical stuff. In Rader's atomic clock example, the rate of change is slowed for the airplane frame of reference relative to the Earthly frame of reference. But while the rate of physical change may be affected by factors such as movement, acceleration, and gravity, that is a different subject from if everything that exists is affected by those physical conditions.

In a thread I started about a year and a half ago PF I asked if in the famous Earth/traveling twin paradox if the twin who'd been raised on Earth, and then traveled in a frame of reference with a different rate of change than he was used to, would notice https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=1110. Everyone arguing from a purely physical perspective insisted that because all physical conditions on the traveling spaceship (including his own physiology) would appear normal, the traveling twin wouldn't notice.

However, if there is something about a human being which is constant and unchanging, and that part of us is the "heart" of our consciousness, then I asked if possibly that part of us wouldn't sense that the passing years seemed longer. Yes, he wouldn't be able to detect any physical irregularities, so he could never produce an objective proof; but the constant part of him that is always in contrast to ever-changing physical conditions might feel it.

There is no reason I can think of why consciousness must exist in time (i.e., within physical conditions). And, in fact, I do experience a part of me which seems impervious to change, something that everything else moves relative to. A great many others have reported this too, people who have made the effort to look inside.

One last point. Physical time is not just the rate of change, time also includes the fact that the rate of change is overall entropic -- it relentlessly marches toward disorder. Now, if consciousness is existentially independent of the body and all physical change, does that mean it never changes? Not necessarily. Look at how a healthy consciousness changes now inside the body: it learns. Learning is change, but it isn’t entropic change. So change without physical conditions that are deteriorating could be constructive, rather than destructive, and consequently make the evolving consciousness ever stronger, maybe even eternally so as some have suggested.

 

[Prometheus]

Time is really simply how we measure the rate of change of physical stuff.

I agree that your statement is simple. However, it is false. Time is not "how we measure" anything. Your usage is fairly simple, and completely misses the much more important point. Perhaps if you were to investigate modern physics ...

There is no reason I can think of why consciousness must exist in time (i.e., within physical conditions). And, in fact, I do experience a part of me which seems impervious to change, something that everything else moves relative to.

You say that you do, in fact, experience ... How do you know that it is a fact. Furthermore, what might you even mean. Nothing is imprevious to change, in my opinion, and I cannot imagine what you might mean.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I agree that your statement is simple. However, it is false. Time is not "how we measure" anything. Your usage is fairly simple, and completely misses the much more important point. Perhaps if you were to investigate modern physics ...

Time is not at measure of anything, eh? Maybe I better look elsewhere for someone to instruct me on the physics I need to “investigate” the meaning of time. What exactly do you think seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. are? What do you think a clock is but a measuring device? When we say “so much time has passed,” is it not expressed in units? To give us measuring units we rely on things that are cyclic, like the Earth’s movement around the Sun, or atomic cycles. Time is nothing but a measurement, pure and simple. Then, we can reflect on why "dimension" is used to describe time in physics. It is merely a metaphor which refers to the fact that the known three dimensions are inescapably bound up in an environment that's constantly changing overall from integration to disintegration, and whose rate of entropic change can be affected by certain circumstances.

To ponder those two integration-disintegration ideas further, we can see the Big Bang gave the universe its beginning (i.e., made it temporal), and so we assume that’s when time began for the universe. We can see everything physical is changing, and that it is changing toward disorganization (overall). If the universe keeps changing entropically, then it will “end” when all the universe’s order is gone. So what does happen in between the beginning and the end of the universe? Well, the universe is given duration by the structure of physicalness, but in the meantime, radiation, nuclear decay, universal expansion, etc. are overall disintegrating the universe -- that’s how much “time” we have left. Therefore time is really our observation of the rate of entropy.

Using that model we might also say there are two types of time: universal time and unique time. If a person traveled from point A to point B, rather than saying so much time had passed while traveling, one could more accurately say some quantity of matter in the universe had surrendered its order, and so much expansion had taken place—that is, so many universal entropic events had happened. This would be referring to universal time. However, at one particular place in the universe, where a man in a spaceship accelerates to take off from a planet and then travels along at, say, half the speed of light, time progresses slower for him than for his twin brother he left behind on the planet. This would be referring to unique time. So universal time is the overall rate of entropy for the entire universe, but because the rate of entropy can change in a particular circumstance, various situations within the universe exist at relative rates of time.

Now if you want to pump even deeper meaning into it, then I suppose we can talk about what time means to us. I have only so many entropic events left in my body before I’m out of here, and I do see that as significant. I hate wasting time with so little of it left to me (especially at my age).

You say that you do, in fact, experience ... How do you know that it is a fact. Furthermore, what might you even mean. Nothing is impervious to change, in my opinion, and I cannot imagine what you might mean.

I don’t understand why you cannot imagine non-change, it isn’t that difficult to think about is it? But if you want to know what I mean, you might check out some of my threads (you can find that in my profile). I have written extensively on what can be found through the inner experience. A survey of history’s most successful meditators will confirm to you that many have reported there’s something at the root of existence unaffected by change.

In terms of how I “know.” I like to call myself an “experientialist” which simply means that one knows after one experiences something sufficiently. So if I say I know, it is because of experience, and nothing more (like beliefs, faith, pure logic, etc.). You will acknowledge, I’m sure, that there is a difference between what I know, and proving to others what I know. I know I feel happy right now, but you have no way of knowing that because it is happening inside me. If I tell you “I know” anything universal (to humans) that’s inside me, then you can only investigate if it is universally true if you look inside yourself. I say I know there is something unchanging in me, not subject to “time” (as defined), and I see it in others too now that I have experienced in me. Whether you know it, or will know it, depends on if you decide to try to experience it.

 

[Prometheus]

Time is not at measure of anything, eh?

I did not say that time is not a measure of anything. I said that time is not "how we measure". Time is much more that.

Maybe I better look elsewhere for someone to instruct me on the physics I need to “investigate” the meaning of time.

I agree. That is why I am offering you this opportunity. You certainly need not agree with me or accept it.

What exactly do you think seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. are? What do you think a clock is but a measuring device?

The difference between us, I believe, is that you are saying that time is nothing but a way to measure, whereas I say that time is far more fundamental than that. The ability to use time to measure space is due to the fundamental interaction between time and space, which you seem to deny exists.

Time is nothing but a measurement, pure and simple.

I agree that this is simple, as you say. This is very simplistic, in my opinion.

Then, we can reflect on why "dimension" is used to describe time in physics.

You deny that time has the most important of its meanings. Based on your misunderstanding, you then question why people use the word dimension in the context that you have denied it. Perhaps if you were to investigate the concept of dimensions further, you might realize that it does apply.

To ponder those two integration-disintegration ideas further, we can see the Big Bang gave the universe its beginning (i.e., made it temporal),

Speak for youself, and do not say "we" when speaking with me. I see no reason to accept this statement at all.

and so we assume that’s when time began for the universe.

Again you say we, as though you think that you are speaking for more than yourself. You are not.

We can see everything physical is changing, and that it is changing toward disorganization (overall).

I believe that this is a temporary phenomenon.

 

[RingoKid]

everything is a temporary phenomenon when defined by personal time, even in universal time.

time/motion causes change.

In multiversal time nothing is a constant it never changes. We change and move to accommodate it. The perfect nothing.

I think that's what the mayan calendar signifies with the end of the age of motion and the start of the age of light.

No longer will we accept that the light moves towards us perhaps we will see
the light for what it really is. Us projecting our consciousness towards the light both of which propagate in multiversal time and space.

 

[Rader]

I'll just add my two cents.I think it can be confusing to mix up terms used to describe physical phenomena and metaphysical ideas.

We seem to have no other choice, metaphysical ideas give birth to physical phenomena, that is the way we assume the world is at the present. Physics has no physical ideas priori to physcial phenomena. The physcial world is born of relationships not bricks.

Time is now pretty much exclusively a physical concept, so if we want to talk about time in another context we'd have to attach some prefix/suffix or additional word to time to distinguish it from physical time.

Is it?, let's examine this. Special Relativity does demonstrate to us, through our experience, funtional endevours, that are faltless and demand time and space to be unified. As time passes entropy increases. That describes the physical functionality of the macro world. At the micro world level, there is no entropy, time appears to be at standstill. Yet if you ask a physicist working on his particle accelerator, was there a particle or not? It was not always there. How can you have a particle if there is no time? By having a new theory to explain it. Quantum mechanics, shows us how and the machines that are designed from it, again have functionality. Time and space is still there even if it is a different set of relationships to explain it. We will attach a new prefix/suffix, like time is anytime and space is anywhere. OK so now we go all the way back to where we know nothing about our universe the BB, just before that initiates. We have no known evidence to believe something comes from nothing unless nothing was something. In fact virtual particles come from nothing which would have to be something since we experience just that. There is no evidence to suggest that either time or space or the laws that govern this world we live in are anything more than a priori existence in a state of which we do not know anything about yet. All these concepts unfold in a natural way due to specific verifiable and measureable anthropic fine tuning. So put a new prefix/suffix, intrinsic time and space in a limbo state. If there is any validity to your experience Les, this indicates just what I am saying. Now here is a question that maybe only you know what it means. How can you experience Essence and describe it as you have in a spatial way and timeless notion if it did not possesses these qualities?