2
   

Infinite Linear Time Vs Circular Time

 
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 12:52 am
@YumClock,
YumClock;74963 wrote:
Surely we simply see patterns in occurences, not time itself.
Time is as linear as a geometrically perfect line to us, moving at our unrelativistic speeds. We have circular clocks because it is convenient to take time by recurring events, but noone is fooled into thinking any Thursday ever happens again.


Is it time that allows us to move or movement allows that allows time to flow. I see an interconnectivity in all of this, space time and movement are really one continuum

"Spacetimemovent" remove anyone of those factors from the equation and nothing can "Happen"
Neil D
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 08:17 am
@validity,
validity;74114 wrote:

Thank you for clearing that up. Now I can see your idea is that the only period in which god exists is during the period of real eternity which conceptually and on your time line, never occurs during our existence. God never exists in our existence, rather god exists in a period outside outside our existence. We and god are mutually exclusive.


This may fit with another theory i have about god(thanks to Einstein, and some Physicists).

At the time of the singularity, before the universe was created. The four fundamental forces did not exist, but instead there was a unification of these forces called a superforce(or god). I suppose this is the real eternity period mentioned, and the time when god was whole.

God then divided himself(the big bang), and manifested into the beginning of the universe.

Seems like god does still exist, but in a different form. Actually the entire universe would be god as opposed to a centralized force at the time before creation.

I dont think though, that its like god committed suicide in creating the universe, but still remains possibly in the form of a field, for one anyways. Like Diracs QED field, another component of god, and perhaps one that still allows him to exist in some form.

In M Theory however, in the case of a multiverse, there could be an infinite number of gods with respect to this theory.

What a crazy idea, and thats all it is. Just an idea.
William
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 09:49 am
@Neil D,
Interesting thread guys and gals. IMO, when it comes to time, it is a product of our limited understand and predicated on our viewing of our existence as terminal which is why we "speed"; rate and distance being crucial elements in all our calculations. It seems to me we are ill equiped to understand exactly what infinity is which brings us the alpha/omega; beginning/end paradigm that governs much of our thought as far as past, present and future. Sara, IMO, is on the mark, in that all there "is" is the "now", not only as it relates to our perception, but the universe as well in that the future truly does not exist until we step into it which makes it the now.

The fact that we perceive the future finite (omega) IMO causes a lot of problems associated with "speed" and we lose resonance in the ongoing momentum of the universe that never changes. In other words we are "getting ahead of ourselves", so to speak as we clip along faster than we should in our efforts to extend "that time". How fast we move matters IMO,

So, I guess the more we effort to define time and save time and extend time the faster we age, shrivel up and die. We over stress the mechanism.

Please forgive me in my awkward contribution. I know of no other way to explain the paradox of time recognition and what roll it plays in the speed in which the human being travels, both mentally and physically. It seems to me there is a pace that will be complimentary with that continuum that the univers 'travels' at, we just don't know it, yet? if I am off track in your opinion, please feel free to help me adjust my thinking.

William
0 Replies
 
YumClock
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 10:47 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;74978 wrote:
Is it time that allows us to move or movement allows that allows time to flow. I see an interconnectivity in all of this, space time and movement are really one continuum

"Spacetimemovent" remove anyone of those factors from the equation and nothing can "Happen"


I don't mean to infringe on your right to post, but I saw no correlation between this and the post you quoted.
But yes, what you said is likely very true.
An interesting thought experiment is to imagine two spheres moving in your mind. If you freeze the image - that is, remove time and movement, you can also remove the space inbetween the spheres, which was before impossible.
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 05:07 pm
@Neil D,
Neil;75067 wrote:
This may fit with another theory i have about god(thanks to Einstein, and some Physicists).

At the time of the singularity, before the universe was created. The four fundamental forces did not exist, but instead there was a unification of these forces called a superforce(or god). I suppose this is the real eternity period mentioned, and the time when god was whole.

God then divided himself(the big bang), and manifested into the beginning of the universe.

Seems like god does still exist, but in a different form. Actually the entire universe would be god as opposed to a centralized force at the time before creation.

I dont think though, that its like god committed suicide in creating the universe, but still remains possibly in the form of a field, for one anyways. Like Diracs QED field, another component of god, and perhaps one that still allows him to exist in some form.

In M Theory however, in the case of a multiverse, there could be an infinite number of gods with respect to this theory.

What a crazy idea, and thats all it is. Just an idea.
Have you read God's Debris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ? ie god wants to know what happens if god destroys godself and the self destruction is known to us as the big bang event. There is a free PDF copy on the net.

There is an interesting problem with infinite universe or universes. If there were infinite pocket universes, then there would be an infinite number of pockets that have the identical configuration as the one we see ourselves in. Out of these infinite identical universes there would be, through probability, at least one (if not infinite) that has the same combination of constituents that are identical to this universe. In effect infinite universes give rise to infinite combinations of matter that are identical to you and your experiences.

YumClock;75083 wrote:
An interesting thought experiment is to imagine two spheres moving in your mind. If you freeze the image - that is, remove time and movement, you can also remove the space inbetween the spheres, which was before impossible.
What do you mean by remove the space in between? I do not understand how spatial relation is not needed. If you remove the space between them dont you need to move the two spheres together ie require movement and time to do so?

As a general comment for the thread is how can the difference between the idea of linear and curved be demonstrated when time is itself 1d?
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 08:52 pm
@validity,
Does the concept of infinity apply to everything of the concept of everything?
validity
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 09:40 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;75221 wrote:
Does the concept of infinity apply to everything of the concept of everything?
I do not understand your question. In the context of my last post, which was in response to the idea of infinite universes, the concept of infinite things in infinite combinations is applicable as there are infinite universes in which to have identical combinations of already existing things.
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 10:11 pm
@validity,
validity;75234 wrote:
I do not understand your question. In the context of my last post, which was in response to the idea of infinite universes, the concept of infinite things in infinite combinations is applicable as there are infinite universes in which to have identical combinations of already existing things.


There is no causality for infinity altogether so how can there be a relationship between the infinite things to the infinite combinations of things. Does this not seems entirely redundant anyways?

Infinity cannot take such a box inside a box concept. The concept of infinite things in infinite combinations is absurd. I have a combination of A and B, but can I not say this is a thing AB? So is this not redundant? And yet I have reduced how many things there need be. A 'thing' is just a conceptualization, not actual.

A and B are both 'things' (mind you these things don't exist in actuality).
Likewise, infinity is only a syntax to things, not to what is actual.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 11:53 pm
@Neil D,
Eternity is circular

Infinity is linear
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 03:07 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;75236 wrote:
There is no causality for infinity altogether so how can there be a relationship between the infinite things to the infinite combinations of things. Does this not seems entirely redundant anyways?

Infinity cannot take such a box inside a box concept. The concept of infinite things in infinite combinations is absurd. I have a combination of A and B, but can I not say this is a thing AB? So is this not redundant? And yet I have reduced how many things there need be. A 'thing' is just a conceptualization, not actual.

A and B are both 'things' (mind you these things don't exist in actuality).
Likewise, infinity is only a syntax to things, not to what is actual.
I was just thinking that the mechanism that differentiated our universe from the multiverse would possibly be able to replicate the conditions necessary to create a exact replica of this universe and its contents. Perhaps I am wrong.

Alan McDougall;75241 wrote:
Eternity is circular

Infinity is linear
It is interesting that a curved line is defined by the use of 2 spacial dimensions.
0 Replies
 
juminski
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 10:48 pm
I have had this idea of time for about 30 years now, after reading something while studying Bible at Houghton College in 1979. (Hope this doesn't disqualify my input from serious consideration by you "brights" out there.)
It's about time being a line. Time is a line because there is a beginning and an end. The distance between points is a line, therefore, time is a line.
Angels had a beginning. They exist in time, in some sense, yet have access to eternity. Motion in space is related to existence in time. Time requires the existence of space. The "point of singularity" that "exploded into being" at the Big Bang had to "be" somewhere, right?
Anyhow, we exist in time, God does not. He is in eternity, outside of time. So, picture a "snapshot" of eternity as a piece of paper with a line drawn on it. Extend the borders of the paper as far as you like. The line represents time as we know it, a series of points on the line. Call he points minutes, moments, hours, days, years, whatever you like. It matters not how "long" the line is in terms of eternity, the sheet of paper. However "long" it is, eternity always engulfs it. Time may as well be a simple point of no particular size on the expanse of eternity.
What matters to us as human beings is what happens to us when we "step off" the line of time at death. We think of the dead as being in heaven or hell "now", in relation to us still in time. Is this true? What if we all, upon leaving the line of time at death, meet in some "Grand Central Station", to find ourselves arriving at the same "time" to the "Day of Judgment"?
Then, in a scene reminiscent of "Sophie's Choice", we are separated to meet our destinies as "saved" or "lost", according to God's will and judgment?
I see another image: the line of time sprouts a myriad of "bristles" as individuals die and leave the line of time each moment. The line of time then appears as a hairy caterpiller crawling across a blank page.
The mind cannot grasp such concepts, can it?
Consider this image. Lucifer is but newly made, the finest of the angels. The first hint of rebellion has but begun to appear in his consciousness, yet it will come to fruition in all its evil. He has as yet no inkling of his great sin and fall, yet God does. From His eternal position, He sees the complete line of time and makes all the adjustments necessary to have the quirks and deviations from the true arrive at perfection in the end. He decides the outcome and time is merely process He uses to accomplish His will.
Sorry, I've run out of gas on this topic. Might someone else pick up this strand?
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 03:51 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
YumClock;74963 wrote:
Surely we simply see patterns in occurences, not time itself. Time is as linear as a geometrically perfect line to us, moving at our unrelativistic speeds. We have circular clocks because it is convenient to take time by recurring events, but noone is fooled into thinking any Thursday ever happens again.
Is it time that allows us to move or movement allows that allows time to flow. I see an interconnectivity in all of this, space time and movement are really one continuum "Spacetimemovent" remove anyone of those factors from the equation and nothing can "Happen"


so how does time move anything , on its own ?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 04:35 pm
@Neil D,
Quote:
Can anyone straighten this out for me?


I think that lines and circles are insufficient to explain time.
And it is no longer considered indisputable that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. It is merely another theory, and most likely it's wrong.
0 Replies
 
NoSuchThing
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2012 08:57 pm
@Neil D,
Time and space must co-exist simultaneously, so no space no time. Since space doesn't exist before the Big Bang, so neither does time. It's that simple.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 04:42 am
@NoSuchThing,
Just because our perception, and therefore our reality, is four dimensional, doesn't mean that is true for all of the universe.

It may even be that our perception covers more dimensions that the ones we think, but that may be a question of definition...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2012 08:54 am
@Cyracuz,
Do you recall my reference--years ago--to the old zen master's reference to time as follows?
He said that--taking our categories seriously for the moment--"the future" does not exist yet and "the past" no longer exists. They are both EMPTY. "The present" exists only as the passage of the empty future into the empty past*: It's all emptiness (sunya, an important category in zen thinking).
At the same time, of course, the category of the present (now) makes no sense without the categories of past and present, and each of them make no sense without the other two. I'm referring not to their ontic status but to their meaningfulness (semantic value).
* Yet if anything exists it does so in this "empty present" Rolling Eyes
NoSuchThing
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 May, 2012 05:33 pm
@JLNobody,
Since every word you used is defined by another word in the English dictionary, the meaning of your entire statement is limited, first by the English language and second by the boundary of the universe in terms of space and time. So the question can not be answered but intuited, maybe only briefly, when your mind is close to "Infinite".
0 Replies
 
mick007
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2012 10:51 pm
@Neil D,
The problem with your theory is that its not at all theoretical. Remember a theory is a description of facts which have already been tested and demonstrated. Those facts must be axiomatic. In other words they must already have been demonstrated and are either self evident or have other self evident facts which demonstrate their validity.

So you can have a theory of say food preparation and its based on all the work done by bakers in the past. Things they already demonstrated as being factual (like for example if you bake bread for three weeks it will end up vaporised)

In the case of your specific theory it isn't a theory...its just an idea.

But without brushing it aside let me point out some things that have already been tested which you include in your idea. Some elements 'can' be tested. For one thing you mention the 'time' before the singularity. But since we know now that going backward time itself ceases to exist even 'before' we reach this singularity (since time is a product essentially of the interactions of subatomic particles with the higgs field) Then any description of time before this point is truly meaningless.

In other words no time whatsoever passed from the singularity state of the universe to the higgs field...there was no time. There might have been something in its place which had some of the properties we might describe as time, but it wouldn't be the same thing..., but there was certainly no time in the way we reference causes or effects.

Physicist explain most things as a spacial reference point anyway and often times 'time' is just one thing that gets in the way. For that reason time is dealt with in slices. But at the outset of the universe there was no time which under normal circumstances would make all descriptions easier, but of course without time no interactions are possible.

Einstein has little to do with this, in fact he was totally opposed to the idea of the expanding universe and had to be brought round to the idea by george lamaitre and edwin hubble.

I don't know of any other physicists that would think 'time' was present in this universe until there was something to allow it to be...for that you need matter, for matter you need mass, for mass you need something that makes mass.

This all revolves around the problem that time (and gravity) are in fact properties of other features of the universe...they are both a manifestations or side effects of something else, and indeed are changed by that something else. So time is altered by gravity, gravity by mass, mass by speed (or velocity) etc. Without any of these things there is no time.

However you could of course have sort of an eternity of time going forward...at least until all the matter in the universe dissolves first to subatomic particles, then to massless subatomic particles and finally they literally fall out of existence since they aren't in any way present... at that point time itself will cease to be. If you then wanted to ask how long that would remain the case the answer would be essentially 'eternity' since that's where time comes to its conclusion.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 09:06 am
@mick007,
1 - You better refresh your notions of "axiom" and "theoretical"...

2 - You should perhaps go from reasoning upon the concept of 'time' towards reasoning upon the concept of 'movement', as 'time' seams a messy word...from there and clarifying, I find it easier to look at movement (itself not essential) as increasing change from sequence to sequence of information sets who actually don't disappear from existence, but rather from our interaction field...finally to say that the only concepts I think are not reducible (can't see how) philosophically speaking, are first one dimensional 'space' itself (you don't need more as other dimensions can be described in the first) and second 'information' as an abstract reference to substance in its widest (not materialistic) sense...
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 04:15 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:

Does the concept of infinity apply to everything of the concept of everything?


yes , just don't try to imagine
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/08/2023 at 03:58:43