FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-30-2002, 06:37 PM   #51
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
Post

Quote:
Look here!

1.)
According to our sacred Big Bang theory, there was an instance T=0. Right!

2.)
Thus there was a change prior T=0 that triggered time itself to start existing.

3.)
In accordance to the notion of cause and effect, everything must happen in Time, Right!. Then the change prior T=0 must have also happened in time! which time? Time had not 'started'. This effect/change prior T=0 was the one to 'launch' time.

The above implies that the Big Bang happened in time! We come up with this idea of T=0 because we did not know how much of the infinite time had passed until the big bang took place.

If the Big Bang happened in time, then there is no T=0.

and

Time is infinite. at least up to when we can figure it out what existed before the Big bang and what happened prior the big bang?
1) To my knowledge, the "Big Bang Theory" does not absolutely require an instance T=0. For the time being, I will have to say "There may or may not be an instance T=0."

2) It does not follow from the existence of instant T=0 that there was a change prior to T=0 that triggered time itself to start existing. Time may simply exist, with absolutely nothing before T=0.

3) While your argument has already fallen apart, I may as well address this point too. Our space-time universe could have a cause without that cause existing in time, but that would require us to propose the existence of higher levels of some sort.

Finally, what would be wrong with time being infinite? As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing.
tronvillain is offline  
Old 07-30-2002, 11:49 PM   #52
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South of Sahara
Posts: 216
Post

hey tronvillain.........

3)Our space-time universe could have a cause without that cause existing in time,
Why are you letting go our notion of cause and effect.if the universe could not have needed time to start to exist, then why even start thinking that "TIME" exists. I will echo my words again "TIME is A Creation Of Our Brains".An illusion!


but that would require us to propose the existence of higher levels of some sort.
Thats where man always flees to when he can't explain something. 'a state of highest order'.

Finally, what would be wrong with time being infinite? As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing.
We all know that infinity is another illusion just as 'time' is! It's like proposing again "existence of higher levels of some sort.
as you put it ealier.

I know that time to us, is an ordering of causality, that it is very difficult to let it go. Just as most people find it so odd to abandon the idea of a "God"., because he/she looks so real to them, that even their brains have developed a sort of an extra "dimension" to represent a him 'God'.

I also know that until we can unite the four fundamental forces in our universe into one unified theory, and until we understand how gravity behaves at extremely small scales,'time' will be hard to do away with....

Until then you keep the idea of a 'time' existing and i keep the idea that 'TIME DOES NOT EXIST!!!!'

--Thanks---
atrahasis is offline  
Old 07-31-2002, 04:18 AM   #53
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,956
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by IntenSity:
<strong>
The two (time as a dimension and time as change-based) are not mutually exclusive.
I have a problem with the "dimension" perspective because it always ends up implying our actions are deterministic.</strong>
I, too, have a problem with time as a dminension as it involved time travel which, in turn, is an impossible act because it allowed contradiction actions to take place and so far, we had never seen any time-travellers.
Answerer is offline  
Old 07-31-2002, 05:08 AM   #54
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,886
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by IntenSity:
<strong>...I have a problem with the "dimension" perspective because it always ends up implying our actions are deterministic...</strong>
If time is 2+ dimensional then it wouldn't have to be deterministic... time could branch out like a tree and even have loops - instead of being a line.
excreationist is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 05:14 AM   #55
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Montrčal
Posts: 367
Post

good work so far,

Time is what is experienced while waiting for the changes to complete. In a still universe one waits for the stillness to end.

Sammi Na Boodie ()
Mr. Sammi is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 05:33 AM   #56
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South of Sahara
Posts: 216
Post

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:

Time is what is experienced while waiting for the changes to complete.
A change will complete with or without waiting.

Time is what is experienced
Do i sense; "God is what is experienced"
here

Does an embryo in the womb 'experience' "time"?

Mr.Sammi,
We DONT EXPERIENCE TIME BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.
atrahasis is offline  
Old 08-01-2002, 12:14 PM   #57
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 1,336
Post

Greetings:

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

--Groucho Marx.

(Thought a little levity was in order.)

Keith.
Keith Russell is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 01:44 AM   #58
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South of Sahara
Posts: 216
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Answerer:
<strong>
Apparently, if time travel is possible, then time must exist and so, in the opposite case, in which time was found not to have no existence that makes time travel impossible. However, if time travel is found to be impossible first, our conclusions will be far more harder to determine. Nevertheless, I can think of this as the only or most practical way to determine whether time exists or not.
It is interesting to note that if time travel is possible, why aren't we visited by time travellers from the future? A tough question I guess and maybe a question we will never know.



[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Answerer ]</strong>
If time travel is possible, it will not mean that 'Time' exists, instead it will mean that Einstein was right when he said "The future and past exist concurrently" what do you think guys?
atrahasis is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 05:44 AM   #59
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,956
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Black Moses:
<strong>

If time travel is possible, it will not mean that 'Time' exists, instead it will mean that Einstein was right when he said "The future and past exist concurrently" what do you think guys?</strong>
Concurrently? Are you talking about MWI?
Answerer is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 06:01 AM   #60
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South of Sahara
Posts: 216
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Answerer:
<strong>

Concurrently? Are you talking about MWI?</strong>
I meant simultaneous. The past is there somewhere in the universe but not somewhere in 'time'.
The future is there somewhere in the universe,not somewhere in 'tim'e

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>
atrahasis is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.