Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If all time is relative, there can be no such concept as the present, even as a series of infinitesimal linked moments.

How can we comprehend the period before 'time' ?

Victor> I think you’ve stumbled across a common misconception regarding the special theory of relativity. Said theory has it’s name as it speaks of observers RELATIVE to one another observing the same event for example.
You can think of it the following way: We’re al equipped with a clock that measures what is called our eigen-time (own-time). That clock always ticks away with the same distance between seconds no matter WHAT you do.
But if you start moving relative to me, the time I see on your clock will start to run slower. The faster you go, the slower your clock will run SEEN BY ME. You will stay claim your clock is running as always.
Did that help?

The present: Physically defined it’s the instant between past and present, and as such non-existent. But when you and I talk about present, we usually mean a small area of time CENTERED around the physical present.

Before the Big Bang, there was no time. We CAN’T comprehend that, just as we can’t really comprehend infinity either.
BEFORE is a temporal concept, so without time, the word looses it’s meaning.
However can you theoretically grasp the IDEA of no time, you can also grasp how Big Bang could occur.

He thinks every things reletive in sirel killer.

I did not require 'help' with it, I would like to see people's viewpoints on that. I'm using the term relative strictly in the sense of any given moment being relative to another.

I do not think we can comprehend the concept of 'no time', I also do not think that is a satisfactory answer, it's essentially as vague as saying there is a God, there just is, and you cannot understand it.

Seeing as it's an unresolvable but interesting point, I'd prefer if people didn't try to resolve reams of theological and scientific debate within a quick post on a movies messageboard.

That's not addressed to the previous poster, just so we may move on.

How MIGHT we understand a period with no time as we know it?

Victor> You obviously DO need help in grasping the concepts of relativity. “Moments” are not relative to one another, they’re on order. Either moment a lies before moment b or it lies after it. For you, there will be no relativity with regards to said sequencing.

That an answer is not satisfying to you, still doesn’t change the facts, that space/time/energy emerged with the Big Bang – to the best of our current knowledge. As I said above – “before” is a temporal concept, hence it gives NO meaning to ask what was BEFORE time began.

'“Moments” are not relative to one another, they’re on order. Either moment a lies before moment b or it lies after it.'

And thus moment a becomes relative to moment b. This was the sense in which I used it, you are speaking of technical terms. It's literally relative, in that very way. The sequence of moments between this reply and your post are all now relative in a strict way.

Anyway, I'm not talking about the 'special theory of relativity', I'm talking about conceiving an unexplainable scientific concept which seeks to replace the theological.

um.....I apparently need to go back to college and retake a class or two before I can participate in this thread.

Haha.

Nah, what I was originally hinting at, is that is it not weird that time had to begin? If it did 'begin', then how could we comprehend what was before 'time' as we know it.

Ok, ok, let's clear this up.

VVD, if all time is relative to what? Define that and then no-one need be confused. Objects are relative to each other; what are you presupposing time is relative to?

However, with all due respect to Omega, my understanding of relativity from people at least as qualified as her is that as two observers moving relative to each other may not agree from observation at which point in time an event occured, they therefore can be said to have their 'own' time, and so it is impossible to create a centralised system of time for the universe, and therefore it makes no sense to talk of time as anything other than relative, any more than you can with position in space, not that the two should be separated anyway.

I think someone at least has the right to argue that, anyway.

In fact, I cannot help thinking the way the question wanted to be phrased was:

"If people's perceptions of time are relative to each other, there can be no etc."

But to be absolutely honest, I don't think you need that sentence to introduce your actual question- because even if I disagreed with that statement it would make little difference- and then this is where it gets complex.

What I mean is quite straight forward and implicit: I mean time as relative to itself, hence no other qualifier. Each passed moment is relative to the ones before, BUT.

That really wasn't the point of the thread. I phrased it loosely because I didn't intend people to concentrate on the specifics- I guess it's all good fun though.

In fact looking now, it's probably the topic title which caused the confusion.

Damn straight- if you meant time as relative to itself there was absolutely no point mentioning the term relativity at all.

I can see how it caused confusion, however I was using term in a general sense- the ideas I was hinting at were philosophical, as the forum dictates, not scientific.

You know, I am really learning from this thread.

lol me 2. im gonna stun my philosophy professor wen i go 2 college... (she's a bit nutty tho, so i cud get away with sayin that i like bagels and she'd reel somethin philosophical off about bagels and send us to sleep)

continue! this thread is kicking ass at the moment.

Well what do people think about that?

Is it possible to conceive of a time without time?

If not, is that because we are incapable mentally, or have no frame of reference, or something else.

Well, Time that has forever existed, which it must have coz as you stated, you can always say "Well what was before the big bang? There had to be something." Just like you can always add 1 to any number.

But the thing I'm aiming at is, infinity. Considering that time has been around for infinity, there is endless possibilities as to how that infinity could be filled. No matter how much of Time you went through filling up every single possibly possibility, there would be infinate space left. So that kind of deadens or at least wounds the theory of there being a birth of time.

Your question as to how can we know about a time period for which we have no reference, I believe there really is no way unless time travel is some how discovered which in any case is far to detrimental to our own time. We can only go by what we know, which considering the amount of answer to unanswered questions ratio, isn't alot.

"Is it possible to conceive of a time without time?

If not, is that because we are incapable mentally, or have no frame of reference, or something else."

I don't believe it is possible. I don't believe it's because we're mentally incapable but my thought is:

If time didn't exist, time couldn't pass and if time didn't pass we wouldn't have come to exist.

Whether time is/was capable of moving/progressing/passing at different speeds is another story however.

-AC

If time didn't exist, it wouldn't need to pass.

I find I have as hard a time believing we went from nothing to something, as in believing in an immortal and eternal creator.

Well it's always better to confirm the possibility of something we can't possibly comprehend than deny it totally I believe.

-AC

Whatever happened to this thread? I just remembered it existed.

The question being- how can we comprehend a time 'before time'?

When I mentioned 'relative' time, I simply meant time as relative to itself-IE, the present as relative to a distant 'starting point', with a measurable period marking the difference between points.

I wasn't referring to Einstein's theories- merely the concept that time had to 'start', in order to catch up to where we now find ourselves in temporal terms.

It's the period before that that is interesting (Technically even the word 'period' is possibly redundant there).

Time is a type of space that is difficult for us to understand. So, let me explain by using a metaphor.

If you are standing in a room, you see the room from your point of view. If someone else is in the room, they will see the room from their point of view. If a third person were to walk from person A to person B, their point of view would change from being the same as person A to being the same as person B. Although the points of view of the three people are different and for person three, is changing, the room dose not change. Now the difficult thing to do is, translate this three dimensional illustration into the 4th dimension of time.

I'm not talking about that kind of relative time though, as I just went to pains to point out.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I'm not talking about that kind of relative time though, as I just went to pains to point out.

What ever...

Niiice.

So, the question.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Niiice.

So, the question.

Are you asking me?

Feel free.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Feel free.

Feel free about what? And are you talking to me?

You are not using quotes so I'm not sure of who you are talking to.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Feel free about what? And are you talking to me?

You are not using quotes so I'm not sure of who you are talking to.

No one else had posted...

Just going to restate the question before this veers off-topic:

The question being- how can we comprehend a time 'before time'?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No one else had posted...

Just going to restate the question before this veers off-topic:

The question being- how can we comprehend a time 'before time'?

There is no time before time. Time is space, so, is there space before space? Yes, but we understand space better than we understand time. Time is an illusion, there is no past or future that isn't right now.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no time before time. Time is space, so, is there space before space? Yes, but we understand space better than we understand time. Time is an illusion, there is no past or future that isn't right now.

I personally have a problem with the scientific conception of the issue. It's never been proven or explained particularly well how 'something' came from 'nothing'; true nothingness as well.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I personally have a problem with the scientific conception of the issue. It's never been proven or explained particularly well how 'something' came from 'nothing'; true nothingness as well.

There is no beginning, and there is no end. The universe is a blinking light in the nothingness.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no beginning, and there is no end. The universe is a blinking light in the nothingness.

Then we return to philosophy, which was kind of the angle I was interested in. The science of it is a whole other issue.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Then we return to philosophy, which was kind of the angle I was interested in. The science of it is a whole other issue.

I see no separation between science, philosophy and religion. I am a Buddhist, so the teachings I study do not disagree with science and philosophy is science that can't be proven. It is like asking what is the biggest number? Any time you come to an answer, you can always +1. Time is not a river that we travel on; time is space we live in.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see no separation between science, philosophy and religion.

I think I'd better ask someone else then...

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think I'd better ask someone else then...

What ever.

Please, post something relevant or PM the reply.

I see your point. Time is constantly in motion so how can we call it the present when the present only lasts a second and then moves on, but I tend to think of the present as a period of time. In this period of time is the most current happenings around us. Therefore the present is a block of time and not just the second that a TRUE present would be.

Comprehending a period befor time began is not all that difficult. Time is a concept manufactured by humans in order to know what will happen next, whether it be day/night or month/season. It's just a way for man to keep track of important events in the lunar and solar cycles. If it had not been manufactured it would still exist as the earth would still rotate and travel around the sun every 365 days, but we would not recognize it as such.

Relative time?

I think that is around Thanks Giving and Christmas. The time when all the relatives come over to visit.

Originally posted by dragon milly


Comprehending a period befor time began is not all that difficult. Time is a concept manufactured by humans in order to know what will happen next, whether it be day/night or month/season. It's just a way for man to keep track of important events in the lunar and solar cycles. If it had not been manufactured it would still exist as the earth would still rotate and travel around the sun every 365 days, but we would not recognize it as such.

How would you define the 'period' before time 'began', if not by temporal means?

Hmmmmmmmmm...maybe there was no period....Maybe our minds can only think in such a way to "What was first" since everything we are accustomed too has a beginning...hard to fathom.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Hmmmmmmmmm...maybe there was no period....Maybe our minds can only think in such a way to "What was first" since everything we are accustomed too has a beginning...hard to fathom.

If you have ever spent any time in a sensory deprivation chamber or stayed up for more then 48 hours, you will find that time goes away.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
How would you define the 'period' before time 'began', if not by temporal means?

Okay, let's say before the Big Bang, if you believe in that, and before the universe became what it is now. There was simply a void mass WAITING, implying time, that waited to explode into the universes we know today. So there was still time, it just wasn't active as we know it.

Void? Mass? Somehow those two words just don't seem to go together.

Originally posted by jerlark386
Void? Mass? Somehow those two words just don't seem to go together.

Here is a 4-dimensional box...

Wrong thread... sorry

Originally posted by dragon milly
Okay, let's say before the Big Bang, if you believe in that, and before the universe became what it is now. There was simply a void mass WAITING, implying time, that waited to explode into the universes we know today. So there was still time, it just wasn't active as we know it.

If there was still a kind of time, when did that begin?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you have ever spent any time in a sensory deprivation chamber or stayed up for more then 48 hours, you will find that time goes away.

OH....sensory deprivation like my house....OH...no that's over load.... .....though I thought it was an illusion...

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If there was still a kind of time, when did that begin?

Just as space, time has no beginning and no end, it goes on ad infinitum. Do you believe there is an end to space? If so what is holding it to an end? Are we just like that little marble around the cat's neck in Men in Black? contained in a finite space? or do you believe that space is ever expanding?

To me, time and space both march on forever, there is no end. When we die does time stop? No, just our time. If the Sun explodes and the Earth is wiped out, does time stop? Our time yes, but the universe will go on.

When I say, a 'void mass,' I am referring to the matter that had to exist before the universe formed into what it is today. And that matter that was in existence had to while away TIME until the event occurred that created the universe, whether it be the Big Bang or the idea of a creator. That matter was still there and was not without time.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, as I am having to take a Philosophy class this semester. Although I didn't think I would like it at first, I am really enjoying it, but sometimes it makes my head hurt.

Originally posted by dragon milly


When I say, a 'void mass,' I am referring to the matter that had to exist before the universe formed into what it is today. And that matter that was in existence had to while away TIME until the event occurred that created the universe, whether it be the Big Bang or the idea of a creator. That matter was still there and was not without time.


This comes back to the essential point though: if there has always been a time, and it was without beginning- and it is presumably linked to the time we experience in the 'present'- how did time ever 'while away' enough of its infinite self to arrive at the current position?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This comes back to the essential point though: if there has always been a time, and it was without beginning- and it is presumably linked to the time we experience in the 'present'- how did time ever 'while away' enough of its infinite self to arrive at the current position?


I'm not really sure what you are getting at.
You lost me here, "how did time ever 'while away' enough of its infinite self to arrive at the current position?"
Are you saying that you cannot accept that a passage of time occurred to arrive at the 'present' and that there will be another passage of time once the present is complete?

Originally posted by dragon milly
I'm not really sure what you are getting at.
You lost me here, "how did time ever 'while away' enough of its infinite self to arrive at the current position?"
Are you saying that you cannot accept that a passage of time occurred to arrive at the 'present' and that there will be another passage of time once the present is complete?

It's not that.

I was thinking about that idea that if time has always existed to an infinite degree, then it's troublesome to imagine that it could ever arrive at the present.

Think of it like this:

Time 'begins' at point A, and we are situated at an ever-moving point B. In order to make that connection between the points, time has to pass enough of itself to arrive. If the intermediate line is the passage of time covering the duration between these points, it would look like this-

A --------- B

Point B's existence is proven to us by our own existence (which is a whole other can of worms, but let's ignore that here).

If time doesn't have a finite beginning, point A's existence becomes problematic- therefore making the intervening period of infinite length.

Unless you view time as circular in motion and a pull force. ..Then there would be no point A.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's not that.

I was thinking about that idea that if time has always existed to an infinite degree, then it's troublesome to imagine that it could ever arrive at the present.

Think of it like this:

Time 'begins' at point A, and we are situated at an ever-moving point B. In order to make that connection between the points, time has to pass enough of itself to arrive. If the intermediate line is the passage of time covering the duration between these points, it would look like this-

A --------- B

Point B's existence is proven to us by our own existence (which is a whole other can of worms, but let's ignore that here).

If time doesn't have a finite beginning, point A's existence becomes problematic- therefore making the intervening period of infinite length.

Sorry, had to go to class. Damn school!

As in your example, B is constantly in motion, so there is no stopping point there. So, time can not be graphed like that. To me it is more like this:

<------------------------------------------------------------->

just like space. But that's not the best example really since infinity expands in all directions and not just back and forth on a line. You may be thinking, "How can time go back on itself?" But think of it this way, if you toss a pebble into a pond, there is a plop and then ripples expand in all directions. There was time before you tossed the pebble and there is still time after the ripples on the water have smoothed. But once the plop has occurred the ripples expand outward in all directions and not in a straight path to a single destination. And this is kinda how I view time and space.

btw, I'm having fun debating this with you. And I really dig your sig, what is it from?

Originally posted by dragon milly
Sorry, had to go to class. Damn school!

As in your example, B is constantly in motion, so there is no stopping point there. So, time can not be graphed like that. To me it is more like this:

<------------------------------------------------------------->

just like space. But that's not the best example really since infinity expands in all directions and not just back and forth on a line. You may be thinking, "How can time go back on itself?" But think of it this way, if you toss a pebble into a pond, there is a plop and then ripples expand in all directions. There was time before you tossed the pebble and there is still time after the ripples on the water have smoothed. But once the plop has occurred the ripples expand outward in all directions and not in a straight path to a single destination. And this is kinda how I view time and space.

btw, I'm having fun debating this with you. And I really dig your sig, what is it from?

I know B is not stationary, but that makes it even more problematic.

I think if the theory of time is so nebulous, then it starts to drift into an unproven realm, like philosophy or religion. That's when I start to find it interesting.

My sig is four different pieces of art by Alex Grey, check him out.

http://www.alexgrey.com/

"Unproven realm," that's a good way to put it. I think your right about that and although it is troublesome and problematic, to me it seems that is the way of the future. Always LOTS of uncertainty and very interesting.

Very nice site, I had never heard of him before. The ones in your sig though remind me somewhat of ancient Egyptian art and artifacts. And I am very interested in all things Egypt. So I thought they were cool.

I always thought that the penultimate one resembles a sarcophagus upon first glance.

Yeah, it does resemble that, but it was the third one that mainly made me think Egyptian. Although in some ways they all do. They are still very interesting to look at none the less. I keep staring at them.

Originally posted by dragon milly
Yeah, it does resemble that, but it was the third one that mainly made me think Egyptian. Although in some ways they all do. They are still very interesting to look at none the less. I keep staring at them.

I was talking about the third one when I said 'penultimate' .

They are captivating, definitely.

Oh Okay, sorry. Maybe I should pull out a dictionary next time.

But I still like them very much.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If all time is relative, there can be no such concept as the present, even as a series of infinitesimal linked moments.

How can we comprehend the period before 'time' ?

Why ppl create cool threads just when I´m not looking !!? Er.. whatever...

There is no absolute concept of present, thats what relativity tells, for example, everything you look at is in the past(since light takes a time to arrive where you are), distant things(like stars) are more in the past than nearer things(like your pc). When we look at the sun, we are seeing what happened eight minutes before the present, and there is no way to know what happens in the sun right now in the present moment. As I told before everything you are looking at is in the past, the only present that exists to you is in the point where you are since its the nearer place from you. Simultaneity is relative, if there is two events A, and B, there could be one frame of reference where A happens first, one where B happens first, one where both happen at the same time, and even the separation in time between the events will vary.

Before time is contradictory, and there is no before time, but if you still want a way to comprehend it here is what I think... If we say that time is finite as I believe, I think the period "before" time... is not exactly a period.... lets call this place(the period before time) A. A can´t happen before the Big Bang, if it does, then A would be a period of time what implies that there would be time before time. This way time will be infinite. The best way to understand A for me is like something that is outside the time, I mean... A is not in the past or future, it not happened or is about to happen as things that exist in time.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Why ppl create cool threads just when I´m not looking !!? Er.. whatever...

There is no absolute concept of present, thats what relativity tells, for example, everything you look at is in the past(since light takes a time to arrive where you are), distant things(like stars) are more in the past than nearer things(like your pc). When we look at the sun, we are seeing what happened eight minutes before the present, and there is no way to know what happens in the sun right now in the present moment. As I told before everything you are looking at is in the past, the only present that exists to you is in the point where you are since its the nearer place from you. Simultaneity is relative, if there is two events A, and B, there could be one frame of reference where A happens first, one where B happens first, one where both happen at the same time, and even the separation in time between the events will vary.

I'm not really referring to Einstein, but don't worry- everyone has done that.


Originally posted by Atlantis001

Before time is contradictory, and there is no before time, but if you still want a way to comprehend it here is what I think... If we say that time is finite as I believe, I think the period "before" time... is not exactly a period.... lets call this place(the period before time) A. A can´t happen before the Big Bang, if it does, then A would be a period of time what implies that there would be time before time. This way time will be infinite. The best way to understand A for me is like something that is outside the time, I mean... A is not in the past or future, it not happened or is about to happen as things that exist in time.

For me, the point you just made isn't the end of the debate, it's the beginning.

That particular answer always leaves me really frustrated, because it's not satisfactory (not criticising you, just the fact that the concept can't be expanded more fully).

In philosophical terms, what do we think happened before the Big Bang? Or even in scientific terms.

I think it's time for a Vanilla Latte...

Originally posted by debbiejo
I think it's time for a Vanilla Latte...

Or is it...

Yes, it was....and quite yummy too...yes

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
For me, the point you just made isn't the end of the debate, it's the beginning.

That particular answer always leaves me really frustrated, because it's not satisfactory (not criticising you, just the fact that the concept can't be expanded more fully).

In philosophical terms, what do we think happened before the Big Bang? Or even in scientific terms.

I think that before time makes no sense, "before" is a word that is defined inside time, it depends on time to exist. I´m not saying that this question doesn´t make sense or anything like this, but the subject that we are trying to comprehend is not exactly a period before time, since period and before are words that depend on time. To say that there is a period before time, is like to say that there is another time in which our time is inside it. So I think that a better way to comprehend it, is like a place outside time, not a period before time. Its interesting that if this place is outside time it never happened or is about to happen. I think that it would be like a concept or idea, for example, those are things outside time (they don´t happen, or are about to happen). I think that probably it is more than simply concepts, and ideas, but I can´t think of what more things it would mean.

I know, it could drive you crazy if you think about it too much.

lol yeah..I know but I like to think in those things

Yep.