I doubt the universe is bothered much by semantics.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.
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).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.
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?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.
no, it could be increasing in two directions at a constant rate. Like a balloon that is being inflated.Originally posted by Mentat
You say that the increasing of entropy doesn't have to be increasing?
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?Originally posted by MajinVegeta
no, it could be increasing in two directions at a constant rate. Like a balloon that is being inflated.
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.Originally posted by Mentat
Are you saying that, if it is disorderly, then it can be orderly?
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?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.
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.Originally posted by MajinVegeta