F theory & M theory

3,754
2
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Mentat, the increasing of entropy in two directions could be constant. It does not have to be increasing and decreasing.
You say that the increasing of entropy doesn't have to be increasing?
 
55
0
The use of the words "future" and "past" do not, by definition, allow them to "all exist at the same time". Sure, it would be useful to consider them as such. But the words used do not allow for it.
I doubt the universe is bothered much by semantics.

Past and future in this sense refer (obviously) to a location in time (say, if you were assigning coordinates to something); "events in all of time at once" means that all possible coordinates you could assign to an event do in fact exist (as opposed to some coming into existence at some later time, whatever that would mean). Which means yesterday and tomorrow would both be in existence, even if we presently can only view a single slice of time and perceive only the particular point in time we are at.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by Zefram
I doubt the universe is bothered much by semantics.

Past and future in this sense refer (obviously) to a location in time (say, if you were assigning coordinates to something); "events in all of time at once" means that all possible coordinates you could assign to an event do in fact exist (as opposed to some coming into existence at some later time, whatever that would mean). Which means yesterday and tomorrow would both be in existence, even if we presently can only view a single slice of time and perceive only the particular point in time we are at.
Of course this is always possible, but that would mean that the future is already as set as the past. It would also mean that there infinite amounts of each person, since no point in time can be singled out as indivisible (IOW, there is no such thing as an "instant", because that would last for zero time).
 

climbhi

Originally posted by Zefram
I doubt the universe is bothered much by semantics.
Good point!
 

RuroumiKenshin

Originally posted by Mentat
This is where the problem lies. If you go to the past, then the "past" has to currently exist, making it the "present". Thus, you wouldn't be traveling to the "past". In fact, since it takes a certain amount of time to get to the point that you might consider "the past" you are actually traveling to the future.
Yes, I have thought of that as well. And it is exactly why I think it almost tenable to assume we could be in a closed time loop. If we are moving at c in a circular pattern, then we could be in a closed time loop? What do you guys thing about that idea?

But does it take time to go to the past?
 

RuroumiKenshin

Originally posted by Mentat
You say that the increasing of entropy doesn't have to be increasing?
no, it could be increasing in two directions at a constant rate. Like a balloon that is being inflated.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
no, it could be increasing in two directions at a constant rate. Like a balloon that is being inflated.
Doesn't work that way. Entropy is the level of disorder in a closed system. That level of disorder can increase (meaning that the system gets more and more disorderly), or it can decrease (meaning that the system gets more orderly), but it can't do both at the same time, can it?
 

RuroumiKenshin

Mentat, assume the universe is unbalanced=disorderly. If it is unbalanced, then it could be both at onece. That's what makes it disorderly.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Mentat, assume the universe is unbalanced=disorderly. If it is unbalanced, then it could be both at onece. That's what makes it disorderly.
Are you saying that, if it is disorderly, then it can be orderly?
 
351
0
I assume that by "two time dimensions" they mean two timelike dimensions, in the sense that the radial dimension of a blackhole is timelike (it forces you to move forward, never backward.) I doubt it's much of anything to worry about and more than likely has nothing to do with entropy.
 

RuroumiKenshin

Originally posted by Mentat
Are you saying that, if it is disorderly, then it can be orderly?
No, not orderly as in completely orderly. What I mean is 'portions' could be orderly, and others wouldn't be orderly. And that's what makes it disorderly, disproportional. BUT, don't take what I'm saying as factual; I'm speculating at the top of my head.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
No, not orderly as in completely orderly. What I mean is 'portions' could be orderly, and others wouldn't be orderly. And that's what makes it disorderly, disproportional. BUT, don't take what I'm saying as factual; I'm speculating at the top of my head.
Majin, whether it's altogether disorderly or orderderly is not really important. What I'm saying is that if it is getting more disorderly then it is getting less and less orderly, isn't that right?
 

RuroumiKenshin

Precisely!

But what does 'disorder' imply about the universe? Chaos?
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Precisely!
Then the idea of entropy's "increasing in more than one direction" is nonsensical, is it not?
 

RuroumiKenshin

I guess.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I guess.
Alas, there are quite a few people who hold to the idea of two time dimensions, and so there may be some good reasoning behind it. Don't just take my reasoning, learn as much as you can about them (if your interested) and make your own conclusion.
 

Related Threads for: F theory & M theory

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
935
Replies
1
Views
3K
Top