Originally posted by dragon millyComprehending 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?
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.
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 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 millyWhen 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.
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. 😄
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.