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.
😄
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 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.
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.